Casper Gielen wrote: > Dale Mentzer wrote: > > I saw an item on one of the local news programs about an alleged problem > > with the date 9/9/99. They said some computers use this as a signal to > >stop > > processing data and they raised the fear that devices such as heart > > pacemakers might cease to function on that date. It sure sounds bogus to > > me. Have ya heard of this one? > > The pacemaker stuff is BS, but the first part is true. The first part is even MORE BS - Why would ANY program trigger on 09/09/99? Think about it - The whole Y2K _problem_ is caused by the use of 2-digit _years_. The month and day are stored as 2-digit numbers too. The use of 99/99/99 as a flag to indicate the end of a processing sequence is perfectly OK - "99" is equally invalid as either a day OR a month number, so it never need even LOOK at the year. Depending upon how you decide to handle the years, (for instance as an eight-bit signed offset from a base year, like 1964, as I did in a date subroutine library I implemented in the late 70s) it might even be Y2K compliant. (Mine handled dates up to the year 2091.) Dave To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
