Well I seem to have started a bit of a firestorm with my innocent question. I was in fact missing the obvious -- that the year the number of years since 1904 (I'd been assuming it was the number of years since 1900 despite seeing the DateTime.h #defines a gazillion times). The result however is that I've done what lots of other folks did -- my program handles dates out to 2050 (not much of an improvement, but something) because of a lot of workaround programming (that section of my code is UGLY). So I'm curious now -- you can all tell that I'm a dilettante programmer (in my other life I'm about to be a doctor). Why can the palmOS only handle a 127 year span when only a few bits more could have obviated the whole problem? Seems penny-wise and pound-foolish. ---------------------- Michael Hutchens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Chuck Christensen
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Steve Patt
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Shaolin Hu
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Marcel Guldemond
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Alan Pinstein
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Steve Patt
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Kenneth Albanowski
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Tom Zerucha
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Michael Hutchens
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? krollin
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Michael S. Davis
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? krollin
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Laurence Lundblade
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Kenneth Albanowski
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Sudipta Ghose
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Mark Nudelman
