Re: OFF TOPIC: Y2K problems with news reader (was Re: Armaggedon)

[/dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker)]

It was Mon, 03 Jan 2000 07:51:10 GMT, and alberta@zip.com.au (Albert
Alcoceba) wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:
| On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 09:08:25 GMT, /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) wrote:
| 
| >Y2K bug!
| >When setting the date in command mode on a PC, the date command
| >assumes 19xx if you provide a two digit year.  If one provides a four
| >digit year (1999 or 2000) the date command works fine.  So the fact
| >that the shortcut of typing the last two digits is not available for
| >years starting with 2000 is a bug.  Horrors!  Got to love those Y2K
| >experts, but missing shortcuts are the most common 'bugs'.
| 
| There is no easy answer to these problems as there is no way a program
| can read the mind of the user.  Prior to 2000, if you put 00 as the
| year in the date command, you would have expected it to be assumed as
| 1900.  How is the program to know you have now changed your mind?

The example did say "when setting the date" and it is not likely that
one would want to set a date on a computer built in the late 20th
century to a date some insist is in the 19th.

I believe that if a programmer chooses to assume, they should assume
the closest valid date.  My wife works with a banking program that
gives histories of the accounts.  If she omits the date it assumes
current year.  That behaviour is WRONG because it treats an entry of
12/31 as the end of the current year and there is no history of the
future to provide.  It should assume current year for dates that have
passed, and previous year for dates that have yet to come, always
allowing for the year to be entered.

One of the bug fixes for y2k is to set an arbitrary year that all two
digit years AFTER that date are 1900 and all two digit years BEFORE
that date are 2000.  Which means another upgrade before the arbitrary
year chosen is reached.  Silly.  But then most have chosen 2036 or
beyond as their arbitrary year, and we will all need new operating
systems by then anyhow.

JL