On Wed 09 Jun, Jeff Dalton wrote:
It's hard to see how this can really be a Y2K issue.
Yes, but Y2K compliance (or lack of it) might well affect any fixes for
this problem. The point is that you can't assume that Y2K is a non-issue
for all compilers. Some do use date and time to modify
Hi
I would like to know whether haskell compilers (hugs, hbc and lmlc) are
fuly y2k compliant. Can anyone fill me in on this?
Thanks
Hugo
--
Dr Hugo Bouckaert - Systems Administrator, Computer Science UWA
Tel: +(61 8) 9380 2878 / Fax: +(61 8) 9380 1089
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Web:
Hugo Bouckaert wrote:
I would like to know whether haskell compilers (hugs, hbc and lmlc) are
fuly y2k compliant. Can anyone fill me in on this?
... and , if you are already here,...
could somebody explain, please, what does it mean to have a compiler
which is *NOT* y2k compliant, what is
On Wed 09 Jun, Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
... and , if you are already here,...
could somebody explain, please, what does it mean to have a compiler
which is *NOT* y2k compliant,
I have found that some compilers put the date and time of compilation in the
resulting object files, so it is
, or legal resources that would be required
to back it up. It must therefore be left to individuals or groups
of users to determine an appropriate notion of y2k compliance for
their own use, and to take responsibility for determining whether
the appropriate systems meet those standards. We already
