 | | Re: CGI question —Steve Bliss
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: CGI question —Matthew Miller
| | | | | (...) 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.... (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: CGI question —Dan Boger
| | | | | (...) at least at the unix epoch, most of the code won't have to be changed - the assumption here is that we won't be using 32-bit boxes anymore, so a long int will be a lot longer :) :) Dan (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: CGI question —Todd Lehman
| | | | | (...) In core, yah, but wot about in packed data structs on tapes? --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | |
