Ciao Mark I agree in a way. But since the output can be formatted for the 17 digit inbuilt I'd prefer it.
Why? I don't like having to do add on bits. Its just more work. TBH I think its madness TW inbuilt dates stop at 1899. I will use you solution, gratefully for the OP. Best wishes TT On Monday, 24 February 2020 19:08:59 UTC+1, Mark S. wrote: > > The simple format yyyy-mm-dd is a lot more easy to read though. > > The TW-based macros I wrote after some suggestions from Mat* seem to be > date agnostic. I can run this: > > 40 days from 1860-12-1 : <<daysfrom 1860 12 1 40>> >> > > and get this: > > 40 days from 1860-12-1 : 1861-1-10 ** >> > > Since I don't have my calendar from 1860/61 hanging around any more (the > cat ate it), > someone else will have to verify that it's correct. > > > * Or someone > ** Wikipedia tells me GE was written first 1860, but I suppose it was > brushed up later? > > > > On Monday, February 24, 2020 at 9:39:08 AM UTC-8, TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> This thread was helpful but I want to point to a simple issue. >> >> I want to import Dickens' novel "Great Expectations" edition of 1867. >> >> At the moment I will have to create a special date field for that since >> TW dates start at 1899. >> >> That is cumbersome. IMO many users need simple creation dates prior to >> 1899! >> >> TT >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/b6336588-c14a-4b22-bd61-c8ec2a623a36%40googlegroups.com.
