>So I'm curious now -- you can all tell that I'm a dilettante programmer (in >my other life I'm about to be a doctor). Why can the palmOS only handle a >127 year span when only a few bits more could have obviated the whole >problem? Seems penny-wise and pound-foolish. Marketing reasons. The original Pilot design had to be competetive with comparable products of the time. Those products could store tons of data in a small amount of space. The Pilot had to be able to make the same claims. Thus, date information was packed into a two-byte field: 5 bits for the day, 4 for the month, and 7 for the year == 16 bits. The mistake was probably exposing this packing in the API. (Another mistake was storing the date as day/month/year, when simply storing "number of days since 1904" as a 16-bit field would have yielded a range of 179 years.) -- Keith
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Shaolin Hu
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Marcel Guldemond
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Alan Pinstein
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Steve Patt
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Kenneth Albanowski
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Tom Zerucha
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- y2k bug inherent in DateType? Michael Hutchens
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? krollin
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Michael S. Davis
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? krollin
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Laurence Lundblade
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Kenneth Albanowski
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Sudipta Ghose
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Mark Nudelman
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Chris Antos
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Michael Yam
