>the concept i wanted to push was that eventually the implementation >behind the API's will be updated.. in 2031 they will say.. ok.. >we can now make the date structure bigger.. :)) what is 1 more byte >when we have 1Gb onboard? The algorithm/implementation is the easy part. What happens with all those databases that store DateType information when the API (or DataType structure) changes? Not only do you need a recompile now, but you need to write/use conversion routines and be able to identify which databases have been converted and which ones haven't. -- Matthew D Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- 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
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Chris Antos
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Michael Yam
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Chris Antos
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Bob Ebert
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Ray Rodrick
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Matthew D Moss
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Steve Patt
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- RE: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Kenneth Albanowski
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Chris Antos
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Christopher Hunt
- Re: y2k bug inherent in DateType? Aaron Ardiri
