> Exactly what do you mean with this? -MM-DD is already supported.
I wasn't sure it was -- it is not a string format that I/we use.
Sean
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging
On 2018-02-28 16:42, Leyne, Sean wrote:
3- I would amend my rules to add explicit support for the -MM-DD
(but not -MMM-DD) format for legacy DATE and TIMESTAMP datatype.
Exactly what do you mean with this? -MM-DD is already supported.
Mark
On 28/02/18 15:42, Leyne, Sean wrote:
3- I would amend my rules to add explicit support for the -MM-DD (but not
-MMM-DD) format for legacy DATE and TIMESTAMP datatype.
This has been my standard format since the Y2k problems and flags in the
user code to switch D and M values if
On 2018-02-28 19:26, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
This thread become full of offtopic discussion... Discussion here is
about date/time separators, for consistency and correct handling of
time zone offsets.
As Firebird accepts everything (spaces, commas, minus, etc) as
separators, that is
> 28.02.2018 16:42, Leyne, Sean wrote:
> > Based on this, and considering legacy FB applications I propose the
> following:
> >
> > 1- The only acceptable string format for the new Date/Time with
> > Timezone datatypes should be the ISO/SQL standard
> >
> > 2- Only legacy DATE and TIMESTAMP
28.02.2018 16:42, Leyne, Sean wrote:
Based on this, and considering legacy FB applications I propose the following:
1- The only acceptable string format for the new Date/Time with Timezone
datatypes should be the ISO/SQL standard
2- Only legacy DATE and TIMESTAMP datatype would maintain
> Should this be considered a bug, i.e., separators should be necessary in this
> case (12-Mar-92, 12/Mar/92, 12.Mar.92)?
My initial reaction was yes, but when I started thinking about/listing my
"formatting rules" and came to realize that "no separator" was a
reasonable/logical extension.
On 28/02/18 10:29, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
On 28-2-2018 10:54, Lester Caine wrote:
Technically, the SQL Standard knows only one format, and that is
(slightly simplified):
-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS.FF..+/-TZH:TZHM
While this is the 'standard' it has the same fundamental flaw that
it's use in
On 28-2-2018 10:54, Lester Caine wrote:
Technically, the SQL Standard knows only one format, and that is
(slightly simplified):
-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS.FF..+/-TZH:TZHM
While this is the 'standard' it has the same fundamental flaw that it's
use in other standards has. It has no way of
On 28-2-2018 10:00, Lester Caine wrote:
On 21/02/18 03:02, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
As part of CORE-5750 problems, I found that Firebird considers '12Mar92'
as a valid date (1992-03-12).
Should this be considered a bug, i.e., separators should be necessary in
this case (12-Mar-92,
On 21/02/18 03:02, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
As part of CORE-5750 problems, I found that Firebird considers '12Mar92'
as a valid date (1992-03-12).
Should this be considered a bug, i.e., separators should be necessary in
this case (12-Mar-92, 12/Mar/92, 12.Mar.92)?
I'd consider ANY
Hi!
As part of CORE-5750 problems, I found that Firebird considers '12Mar92'
as a valid date (1992-03-12).
Should this be considered a bug, i.e., separators should be necessary in
this case (12-Mar-92, 12/Mar/92, 12.Mar.92)?
Adriano
Em 22/02/2018 12:39, Dmitry Yemanov escreveu:
> 22.02.2018 16:41, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
>>
>>> As part of CORE-5750 problems, I found that Firebird considers '12Mar92'
>>> as a valid date (1992-03-12).
>>>
>>> Should this be considered a bug, i.e., separators should be necessary in
>>> this case
22.02.2018 16:41, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
As part of CORE-5750 problems, I found that Firebird considers '12Mar92'
as a valid date (1992-03-12).
Should this be considered a bug, i.e., separators should be necessary in
this case (12-Mar-92, 12/Mar/92, 12.Mar.92)?
Let's better treat it as
On 22-2-2018 14:33, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
As part of CORE-5750 problems, I found that Firebird considers '12Mar92'
as a valid date (1992-03-12).
Should this be considered a bug, i.e., separators should be necessary in
this case (12-Mar-92, 12/Mar/92, 12.Mar.92)?
I'd argue that
On 02/22/18 16:33, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
Hi!
As part of CORE-5750 problems, I found that Firebird considers '12Mar92'
as a valid date (1992-03-12).
Should this be considered a bug, i.e., separators should be necessary in
this case (12-Mar-92, 12/Mar/92, 12.Mar.92)?
Let's better
Hi!
As part of CORE-5750 problems, I found that Firebird considers '12Mar92'
as a valid date (1992-03-12).
Should this be considered a bug, i.e., separators should be necessary in
this case (12-Mar-92, 12/Mar/92, 12.Mar.92)?
Adriano
17 matches
Mail list logo
