| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > IF FLD_XYZ_YR < 29 THEN
> > FLD_XYZ_YR4 = 2000 + FLD_XYZ_YR4
> > ELSE
> > FLD_XYZ_YR4 = 1900 + FLD_XYZ_YR4
> > ENDIF
>
> Sure. That's a pretty typical Y2K fix. And it's basically what you do as a
> human when looking at a two-digit year. (If I tell you that the expiration
> date on my driver's license is 12-30-02, you assume 2002. If I tell you
> it's 12-30-98, you assume I'm in trouble.) Of course, humans are much better
> at fuzzy logic than COBOL, so it's not like 29 is hardcoded in your head,
> but the concept is similar.
>
> (This solution is known as "windowing".)
Yeah, the windowing/epoching/whatevering isn't a big deal. The thing
is, they *hardcoded* the 29. They didn't even make it a constant,
defined at the top of the code (or in a copybook).
So in some number of years, someone is going to have to go through all
the code, *again*, and fix this junk.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: CGI question
|
| (...) Oh, but no one will *possibly* be using the same code in 29 years. We don't need to worry about that. *much laughter* The unix epoch rollover is gonna be another one.... (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: CGI question
|
| (...) Sure. That's a pretty typical Y2K fix. And it's basically what you do as a human when looking at a two-digit year. (If I tell you that the expiration date on my driver's license is 12-30-02, you assume 2002. If I tell you it's 12-30-98, you (...) (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
