Re: Y2k Problem

From: Rod Corderey <Lane_Associates_at_compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 09:59:47 +0100
Message-ID: <354D8383.D7D75E52_at_compuserve.com>


Krishna,

Forms 3 did not support RR format. You don't say which version of the database you are using.

What format is defined for :adate must be ....YYYY ?

I seem to remember that some versions of PLSQL with forms 3 did not handle thing := function(thing) properly , I think because of the transitionary functions, ie all forms 3 internals are chars so to pass a date Forms 3 would add a to_date. Try returning the function to a control field and then assigning it. Also try assigning to a char field with a to_char around your function call to inspect what you are really assigning, or of course a message in the function.

I am very much of the view that two digit years should be scrapped and the business encouraged to adopt four digits.

Any sort of implied date fudging is at risk to changes applied in ignorance at a later date. You are fortunate that your company's records don't go back to 1949 or else there would be a little difficulty in retrieving them, although I accept that there are ways to get over that :-) .  

regards

Rod Corderey
Lane Associates
Lane_Associates_at_Compuserve.com
http://www.Lane-Associates.com  

KKPDC_at_HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
>
> I am in the process of converting forms and reports for Y2K compliance. We
> are using forms 3.o and reports 1.1. The problems I face are listed below :
>
> 1. Is RR date is working inside Forms 3.?
>
> 2. For the purpose of testing, I wrote a form function y2k(wdate in date)
> ------ Starts here ---
> function y2k (fdate in date)
> return date
> is
> YY varchar2(2);
> NEW_DATE varchar2(12);
> begin
> YY := to_char(fdate,'YY');
> if to_number(YY) between 0 and 50 then
> NEW_DATE := to_char(fdate,'dd-mon-') || '20' || YY;
> return (to_date(NEW_DATE,'dd-mon-yyyy'));
> else
> return(fdate);
> end if;
> end;
> ---------Ends here --------
>
> I used this function as :adate := y2k(:adate);
> But I find the date still remain as 1900 and not as 2000.
> Could any one solve my problem please.
>
> 3. Is there any better approach ?
>
> Krishna
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Received on Mon May 04 1998 - 10:59:47 CEST

Original text of this message