Re: Y3K or not to Y3K

["Scott Klement" <infosys@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe I don't understand your question...   but why WOULDNT you use
8-digit dates?  What would it gain you to use 6-digit dates?

I don't really think Y3K is a problem, right now... but Y2.1K (if
we're going to keep using this silly acronym) is only 100 years
away, do you want your company to get stuck with problems then?

Seems to me that its not ANY extra work to use 8-digit dates instead
of 6-digit dates.   The two lousy bytes of disk space can't possibly
be an issue... why would you want to create another situation thats
similar to Y2K?

boothm@earth.Goddard.edu wrote:
> An interesting question was just asked here.  Why, on a brand new
> application with no dates prior to Jan. 1, 2000 are we using an
> 8-digit date?  L-Date fields are not relevant  -  this is an *M36
> installation and likely to remain so.
+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---