On 20 Nov 2003, Peter Dalgaard wrote: > Patrick Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, 19-Nov-2003 at 05:03PM +0000, Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > > > > |> For the record, ISOdate *is* giving the right answer, a POSIXct object. > > |> > > |> The problem is in printing, where there was a simple coding bug: is_year > > |> was applied to the POSIX `year' which is year-1900. > > > > I can't see why it doesn't effect dates before 2nd March. > > Well, it's an open source program.... > > 2nd March is day 60 and the code works out month and day by > subtracting monts as long as the result is positive. If the code > thinks that there are 29 days in February, then 2nd March becomes the > 1st, etc. > > The thing that puzzles me is that the old code didn't also claim that > there was a Feb 29 in 1900, and that there wasn't a corresponding issue > with the year 2000 being a leap year by the %%400 rule. But there > wasn't and there still isn't...
2000 is in the range your OS knows about: it only affected dates out of range of the OS's knowledge where some substitute code was used. -- Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
