-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: John McKown <joa...@swbell.net> Subject: Re: date formats Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:27:39 -0500
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 08:23 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > In <listserv%201008131709378676.0...@bama.ua.edu>, on 08/13/2010 > at 05:09 PM, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> said: > > >I'll agree enthusiastically except where the change could be made in > >a compatible manner, altering no sizes, displacements, nor content of > >existing data bases. One example might be that where Dec. 31, 1999 > >is represented as x'99365', Jan. 1, 2000 could (have) been > >represented as x'A0001' > > That would not have been compatible. Believe it or not, our 20xx dates are encoded x'9A001' for 2000, and so on up the alphabet. I wasn't in on this, so I don't know where it terminates. But x'9F' is the max - 2015. So the world better end in 2012! <grin> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
