At 08:09 AM 6/12/2009 -0500, Stephen Russell wrote: >On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Alan Bourke<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:51 -0700, "Matt Jarvis" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Legacy code? i.e. prior to the Datetime data type coming into existence? > >> > > > > Yeah I would agree - why refactor your entire codebase to use datetime > > when it already works the other way. > > -- >-----------------------------
There could well be good business reasons to separate the date and time columns. For example, if the system required extensive reporting/processing based solely on time of day without regard to the date of the events, etc. Of course, in that scenario, I would have thought the time would have been stored as an integer/numeric (seconds past midnight). Index functions would have worked faster on that type field. But I think if you wrote the system you probably would have remembered the discussions. So it probably was more a supported data type thing. I don't think the datetime data type was in Foxplus. It may not have been in Fox 2.5 either. >Wow in dbase III we used dates because they did a much better job then >parcing out YYYYMMDD. Hmmm.... I'm beginning to think you never understood dBase/Foxpro at all Steven (Bad Steve!). -Charlie _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
