RE: Numeric DATE Fields vs DATE fieldtype

At 9:25 AM 6/12/97, Bob Cozzi wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 11, 1997 10:04 AM, ConnectY2K@aol.com
>[SMTP:ConnectY2K@aol.com] wrote:
>>
>> SOUNDS  reasonable - how does that fit to most Y2K tools.  Not just
>> Bypass2000 that you mentioned.
>>
>
>As far as I can tell, the main-stream (if you can call any of them that) do
>NOT convert to native date field types. None, as far as I know, convert to
>9-digit decimals. But 8-digit numeric are everywhere.



I've always been of the opinion that -any- (packed) numeric field should be
defined as an ODD number of digits.  You're going to get that extra half
digit in the file anyway, so why not define it so you can use it should the
program last 'till 9999?

--Paul E Musselman
PaulMmn@ix.netcom.com


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the Midrange System Mailing List!  To submit a new message,   *
* send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe from     *
* this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify            *
* 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.  Questions      *
* should be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *