Re: Date Format prior to 1940

[Jerry Adams <jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I worked on a package for Y2K conversions.  The package maintained the 
numeric date fields as such (i.e., did not convert them to date data 
types) in ccyymmdd format.  At the same time, if the display panel 
showed mm-dd-yy or dd-mm-yy or whatever, then there were routines to 
preserve the presentation.  First, because that was what the users were 
used to.  Second, because there may not have been enough room on the 
panel (or print format) for an eight digit date. 

The ccyymmdd format obviously allowed comparisons.  Date data types were 
*not* an option because, primarily, we were simply converting what 
existed, not making design changes that the client then had to live 
with.  Also, we converted programs that ran on CISC, as well as RISC, 
systems.  I don't think the CISC systems even had date data types.  But, 
like I said, that was really irrelevant as far as our rationale was 
concerned.  Anyway, no one ever brought up the possibility, much less 
desirability, of using *CYMD format (if someone had, s/he would have 
been ostracized).

	* Jerry C. Adams
*IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
B&W Wholesale Distributors, Inc.* *
voice
	615.995.7024
fax
	615.995.1201
email
	jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I went to a panel on Y2K preparation presented by one company that went 
> through it and how they changed all their dates to numeric packed CYMD. 
> They looked exhausted.  So, I asked them "Are you going to go through this 
> again when the users all want the dates in a format that they can query?"
>
> Rob Berendt
>