On Wed 09 Jun, Jeff Dalton wrote:
It's hard to see how this can really be a Y2K issue.
Yes, but Y2K compliance (or lack of it) might well affect any fixes for
this problem. The point is that you can't assume that Y2K is a non-issue
for all compilers. Some do use date and time to modify their
Hugo Bouckaert wrote:
I would like to know whether haskell compilers (hugs, hbc and lmlc) are
fuly y2k compliant. Can anyone fill me in on this?
... and , if you are already here,...
could somebody explain, please, what does it mean to have a compiler
which is *NOT* y2k compliant, what is
On Wed 09 Jun, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
... and , if you are already here,...
could somebody explain, please, what does it mean to have a compiler
which is *NOT* y2k compliant,
I have found that some compilers put the date and time of compilation in the
resulting object files, so it is
Hi Hugo,
| I would like to know whether haskell compilers (hugs, hbc and lmlc) are
| fuly y2k compliant. Can anyone fill me in on this?
My understanding is that none of the current Haskell implementors
can afford to answer a question like this because none of us have
the developer, support, or
