Subject:
|
Re: CGI question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Apr 2000 02:27:07 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
{mattdm@mattdm.}nomorespam{org}
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
238 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> So in some number of years, someone is going to have to go through all
> the code, *again*, and fix this junk.
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....
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: CGI question
|
| (...) 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 (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: CGI question
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
