On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:35:45 -0500, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 17:19:27 -0400, Art Celestini wrote: > >>I don't know about any clock simulators, Ed, but I went and found the code >>that was involved and it was the CONVTOD macro that accepted a maximum date >>of September 17, 2042. Ed Jaffe pointed out that the hardware does not yet >>support higher dates, but I might argue that the software (CONVTOD) still >>could, at least when using the STCKE/ETOD format. >> >Could. But how much foresight did systems show in anticipating Y2K? >Would you expect preparation for Y2.042K 35 years in advance? The TOD epoch was original 1960-01-01, and was changed to 1900 only later, doubtless because the 1960 base didn't allow for a sufficient range of dates in the past. If you overlook the failure to consider past dates, a clock with much better than microsecond resolution that wouldn't expire until 2102 doesn't seem to lack so much foresight. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
