On 26 Mar 2006, at 14:08, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >[HH]:MM
> >
> >All is peace and joy now. :)
> >
> >Documentation for the formatting codes would have helped. But thank
> >goodness this list is here!
>
> Well, I could see from the results that the HH: had a 0-23 range, and
> that the carryover into the next day was being tossed out, but like
> you, had no clue as to how to fix it. I'm glad that helped, and that
> you posted back that it did. Thank you.
>
> Just to clarify, is it now possible to get answers in the [HH] format
> that will reach to 99 before the overflow now? What happens if you use
> [HHH]:DD instead in that event?
I don't know. My total was 95-something before I edited it down to 61. This
was a course outline that a government agency wanted showing a
breakdown of how long would be spent on each topic, and the entire
course was to be a minimum of 60 hours. I started out figuring a bit on the
long side, just to make sure I hit at least 60 hours. When I saw that it
came to 95+ I knew I had to pare it back. Of course, in the real world the
instructor is going to teach what is necessary to teach and take however
long it takes. We just won't tell the government that we're going to spend
more than 60 hours in order to do the job right, instead of following their
requirements.:)
> In case someone wanted a YY/MM/DD HH:MM:SS format, I wonder how thats
> accomplished?
Hard to say. I'd start with exactly what you have above and poke at it until
it appeared the way I wanted it. I can't find any documentation on the
formatting codes, so the only way to figure it out is to dissect some of the
other formats to see how they work. That's how I figured out that I needed
the {} around HH.
Thanks for the help earlier. The doc is finished and a PDF has been e-
mailed. Now I can resume my life. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
