Binyamin Dissen wrote: >:>Indeed. On the flip side, not every Y2K bug was worth fixing. At NSF >:>we had a monitor that showed the date as 19100; the only real effect >:>that bug had was to provoke the occasional chuckle. > >So it was smart enough to know that it needed 3 digits for the end part of the >year, but then it concatenated the string '19' in front?
Perhaps, but AFAIK, such systems stored the year in two fields. One field was used for century and another field for 2 digit year. In this case I suspect, it was stored as x'13' for 19 in one field for century and another field x'64' for year. In such systems, the year 2000 should be stored/adjusted as x'14' and x'00'. Or perhaps fixed to have one field for year. Then you get that formatting errors too resulting in 5 bytes of display values... Are those monitors fixed at this time? ;-D Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
