× 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.


  • Subject: Re: Y2K countdown
  • From: leif@xxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 21:27:12 -0500

fair enough Kevin.
I haven't seen it either, but it is at least possible.
Well 99099 has come and gone, and no Y2K failures
have been widely reported, so maybe there weren't any,
and there may not be any on 9/9/99 either. Who knows?

----- Original Message -----
From: kevinw <kevinw@hurtcompanies.com>
To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Y2K countdown


> well i am just a newbie... but in my seventeen years i have never seen any
> code that uses 090999/990909 or 99099 for a permanent record... and I have
> seen many a pitiful coding in that "short" time.  I HAVE seen 999999 used
> and it was just coded around to accept as a valid date (just like 000000
for
> no date). I have also seen 123199 used for "no expiration date" (and those
> are "fixin" to expire ;-)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <leif@ibm.net>
> To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 3:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Y2K countdown
>
>
> > > 99/9/9 is still 990909 unless you are interperting a 6 alpha field and
> > > putting your own slashes in....
> >
> > That is exactly the point: 990909 is used as the 'never expire date'.
> > The 99099 I was referring to was Julian day 99 in year 99, and
> > 99099 is used as the never expire date in systems that use Julian
> > days to stores date info.
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <leif@ibm.net>
> > > To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 9:33 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Y2K countdown
> > >
> > >
> > > > Many people have wondered why 99099 or 99/9/9
> > > > could be problematice. The assumption is that 99999
> > > > or 99/99/99 would be used. But, most data entry programs
> > > > have logic that reject 99999 as a invalid Julian day and
> > > > 99/99/99 as an invalid date. 99099 an 99/9/9 are both
> > > > accepted as valid dates (they are !) and that is why
> > > > they are used instead of (the more 'natural' 99999
> > > > and 99/99/99)
> > >
> > >
> > > +---
>
>
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
> +---
>

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

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.