On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 08:23:18 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: >In <listserv%201008131709378676.0...@bama.ua.edu>, on 08/13/2010 > at 05:09 PM, Paul Gilmartin 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. > Well, yes. The entire 21st century is intrinsically incompatible with software incapable of formatting dates past 1999. I merely suggested that bit patterns previously deemed invalid could be used (as a stopgap, I failed to say) to encode a further range of dates until necessary changes in data formats can be made.
-- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
