*- On 2 Jan, George Bonser wrote about "Re: rdate fails Y2K" > On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Nate Duehr wrote: > >> That's pretty funny, if you think about it. The National Institute of >> Standards is either breaking a standard themselves, or isn't Y2K compliant. >> >> HA! That's great! >> > > Someone else reported someplace else seeing a time update of Jan 01, 19100 > right after the rollover. I am wondering if this is the same source of the > problem. > >
The 19100 problem is the result of sloppy programming. There is a c library call that returns the year as the number of years from 1900, also used in perl's Time::Local. Authors were using that as the two digit year or just appending it to 19(not adding), so you are either seeing dates like 1/1/100 or years of 19100. I highly doubt if the NIST folks were doing that. But you never know! Brian Servis -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mechanical Engineering | Never criticize anybody until you Purdue University | have walked a mile in their shoes, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | because by that time you will be a http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis | mile away and have their shoes.
