× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Scott Johnson (sjohnson@highsmith.com) wrote:

>Sure the programmer can do some fancy  programming to default it to
>some century when the year is less than some year, and some other
>century when greater than some year. BUT then that code would have
>to be 'fixed' in a few years.  We have some of this wonderful code in some
>of our programs now.  And I personally don't like it. It is a band-aid.

The code can be a bit more subtle than that. A reasonable window for any
particular date can be determined based on the current date, and the
code can be written so that the window moves with the current date. I
agree with you, however, that the current < 40 = 21st century is a
Band-Aid.

>Also, the programmer code write some code that defaults to the current
>century when on a 2 digit year is entered by the user.  Which I would
>guess is happening in that program you saw..

Defaulting to the current century will not do. If today you see a DOB of
1/1/98 then it might be reasonable to assume that it means 1898, but if
you see it in a few months time it could represent the DOB of either a
centenarian or a neonate.

>But I feel this would open
>the database up to A LOT of key errors and bad data.  The user would
>get into the habit of always just typing 2 digit years.  A customer will
>come along who is born on 09/02/1898.  The user in all their habits
>enters 090298.  Does not recheck the field when it gets resolved to
>09/02/1998.  And the customer becomes not born yet in the database.

A program should not accept a future DOB under any circumstances. The
program should be able to calculate the reasonable window for any
particular date and force confirmation of the defaulted century whenever
there is more than one possible solution. I don't think it's reasonable
to expect users to key the century part of the date when it's not
strictly necessary.

Dave Kahn - TCO, Tengiz, Kazakstan
=========

e-mail:  kahn@tengizchevroil.com    (until September 30th)
         dkahn@cix.compulink.co.uk  (from  October 1st)
+---
| 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
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.