Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 11:23 PM 3/29/00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I don't see a message about this in my archive of messages to this list.
> >
> >Is VMS Perl in some sense Y2K-compliant? If so, was there a particular
> >version
> >at which that compliance was achieved or which was the first one to be
> >generally considered to be compliant?
>
> I think there's a Y2K statement on www.perl.com somewhere about this.
The README.y2k file is distributed with the perl source code kit.
> Perl itself's Y2K compliant. It doesn't use dates internally anywhere, and
> the bits that do use dates either handle years correctly or do Unix
> epoch-seconds. Either way you're OK. The VMS-specific bits of perl are OK
> too, so you're fine all around. User code can be screwy, of course (lots of
> folks don't read the localtime docs properly), but that's a separate problem.
>
> I don't know that anyone's gone looking to see how far back perl's OK. I
> wouldn't be surprised if all the 5.x versions are, nor that perl 4 is OK. I
> think folks only looked as far back as 5.004, though.
I have perl 1..4 on some CD's somewhere (from www.cdrom.com) I'd be
willing to recompile them for a price.
Peter Prymmer
