I ran date.taf with the same two DATEFORMAT settings you tried and got the same results you did.
Has anyone reported this as a bug yet?
- Jeff
Roland, All,--
We did a test on our systems here and have attached the TAF we used. On our Mac OS X server we have gotten results contrary to what is indicated in the documentation. If anyone else wants to run the file and report back their findings we can present a better case if it is indeed a bug or simply a discrepancy with the documentation.
More explanation of the differences is contained in the TAF results.
Jason
________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=date.taf Content-Type: application/octet-stream; x-unix-mode=0755; name="date.taf"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:date.taf 1 (????/----) (000DDE06) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 10:53 PM, Roland Dumas wrote:
by this, a date of 03, should correctly resolve to 2003, right?
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 07:14 PM, Kevin Quinn wrote:
Before you pass judgement, check to see what your DATEFORMAT and/orTIMESTAMPFORMAT is set to.
From the manual: Note: If a date format string contains %Y, but the value for the year is two-digit, the following centuries are assumed, if appropriate:
Value Century 00-36 2000s
37-99 1900s
That is, a two-digit year of 99 is evaluated as 1999, and a two-digit year of 00 is evaluated as 2000.
So, if your date format string contains a %y, 19XX is probably assumed.
Jeffrey Bohmer VisionLink, Inc. _________________________________ 303.402.0170 www.visionlink.org _________________________________ People. Tools. Change. Community. ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
