> I know you said "don't tell me it's the base date", but the date 1/1/68 > was chosen for a reason - it means "divide by 365.25" actually gives the > right answer...
Anybody that relies on that in code is bound to get a nasty surprise. There are dates for which that doesn't work. Try it with July 7, 2006. Today's date is 14437, a year ago was 14072. The difference is 365. Divide that by 365.25 and you get less than one year. The argument could be made that you could round it after the division, but that will throw other dates off. The bottom line is that this is not a safe way to accurately calculate an age - it's *almost* always right, but when that's not good enough, it shouldn't be used. Tim Snyder Consulting I/T Specialist U2 Lab Services Information Management, IBM Software Group ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
