> YYYYMMDDnnn exceeds 32 bits for contemporary values of YYYY, so that's > not a viable alternative. YYMMDDnnn would work, but has Y2K-ignorant > connotations (not that that's particular relevant, post Y2K). Using a
Hmm bearing in mind how the calculation is done YYMMDDnnnn (or nnn) wouldnt be a problem.. going from 9912319999 to 0001010000 is considered to be an increase isnt it? [actually it wraps at 2^31 =~ 4e10] Steve