Re: OT: Date type

David Cressey wrote:
> "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148420437.843050.272930_at_38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > David Cressey wrote:
> > > "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!
> >
> > Is that a typo -- is it 28-Feb-1900 for the Access example? --dawn
> >

>
>

>

Who woulda guessed the Times would be using Access ;-) Received on Wed May 24 2006 - 00:39:41 CEST