×

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.



  1.  Home
  2. MIDRANGE-L
  3. November 2011

Re: 2039 cutoff

Back when IBM introduced the 2040 workaround (in the 90's, in preparation for Y2K) they warned that this was a temporary workaround. They said that we should update our code to use 4-digit years, lest we have the same problem in 2040 that we were having (at that time) with Y2K.

I haven't heard any further talk about sliding the window, but I assume IBM's original statement stands: That it was a temporary workaround, not intended to continue indefinitely.


On 11/28/2011 11:02 AM, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
If one tries to convert 2040-01-31 to MMDDYY it aborts. Documented here
at
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v7r1m0/topic/db2/rbafzch2date.htm
and elsewhere.

Is there any talk about sliding that window?

Since we've already hit a hiccup are some people considering dropping
using built in techniques to convert from 8 to 6 digit date fields and use
custom code?


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 1997-2026 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.