On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Gavin Flower <gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
> On 02/08/14 12:32, David G Johnston wrote: > >> >> Any supporting arguments for 1-10 = 1st decade other than technical >> perfection? I guess if you use data around and before 1AD you care about >> this more, and rightly so, but given sound arguments for both methods the >> one more useful to more users who I suspect dominantly care about years > >> 1900. >> >> So -1 to change for breaking backward compatibility and -1 because the >> current behavior seems to be more useful in everyday usage. >> >> Since there was no year zero: then it follows that the first decade > comprises years 1 to 10, and the current Millennium started in 2001 - or am > I being too logical??? :-) > > This is SQL, only relational logic matters. All other logic can be superseded by committee consensus. IOW - and while I have no way of checking - this seems like something that may be governed by the SQL standard...in which case adherence to that would trump mathematical logic. David J.
