OT: Date type

From: David Cressey <dcressey_at_verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 21:21:48 GMT
Message-ID: <M1Lcg.2086$zg5.875@trndny04>

"Tony Andrews" <andrewst_at_onetel.com> wrote in message news:1148415915.092574.242190_at_u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Presumably if Name were a built-in type then one might use it.
> However, it is no surprise that Name is not a built-in type since (a)
> there is no clear, agreed answer to what comprises a name, and (b)
> there are no clear and agreed operators or "methods" associated with
> names. A built-in Date type is very useful, because everyone agrees
> that 31-Feb-2006 is not a valid date, and everyone agrees that
> 31-Mar-2006 plus 1 day = 01-Apr-2006. Of course, not everyone would
> like to see those dates written in that form, which is another useful
> feature of a built-in Date type: it can display dates in various
> different formats, including different languages.
>

And then of course there's the MS Excel Date type where the successor of 28-Feb-1900 is 29-Feb-1900
versus the MS Access Date type where the successor of 38-Feb-1900 is 01-Mar-1900!

Sorry I couldn't resist tossing that in. It's one of my favorite bugs! Received on Tue May 23 2006 - 16:21:48 CDT