Agreed. The more effective long-term solution is a four digit year. 'RR'
is a quick fix, but isn't a permanent one because it still makes
assumptions about what the user enters.
--
Matt Brennan
SQL*Tools Specialist
GERS Retail Systems
9725-C Scranton Road
San Diego, California 92121
1-800-854-2263
mbrennan_at_gers.com
(Original email address is spam-blocked.)
Alan D. Mills <alanmNOSPAM_at_uk.europe.mcd.mot.com> wrote in article
<6p7bds$2pa$1_at_schbbs.mot.com>...
> I agree absolutely.
>
> I think that the RR date format was introduced purely as a very quick
> mechanism of fixing a bunch of existing code.
>
> I personally recommend the use of four digits for all year input in any
new
> system.
>
> --
> Alan D. Mills
>
>
> meyer_b_at_my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <6p75tu$ci7$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <6p52tn$i2n$1_at_pascal.a2000.nl>,
> >Until users truly understand what's going on, I believe the only sure
way
> to
> >avoid Y2K problems is to force them to enter the exact year they mean.
> I've
> >done this on the last few systems I've worked on, and the users, though
> >initially surprised, understood and agreed once I explained it to them.
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jul 23 1998 - 12:20:11 CDT
