Re: PSC recommends what date format yr 2000???

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

1997


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 10633
interpreted = N
texte = >Just realized in doing some date work, were I want to sort on the year, >then the month, and then the day. Put in some test data as year 2001 >Duh...I assume we should all be considering using the %Y vs the %y with the >year 2000 coming up. Sorting on 99 vs 00 is gonna drive me crazy in 3 >years as to which is higher, vs sorting on 1999 vs 2000. Just thought I >would throw this out to people on this list to consider. Comments anybody.Yes, everyone would be well-advised to use %Y instead of %y for their 'year' format choice in storing dates. This will help you to avoid the 'year 2000' date problem many legacy database systems will have to deal with in a couple of years. No sense in creating future problems for yourself just to save a few bytes in your database records, especially when WebCat2 is so fast anyways ... right? :)Sincerely, Ken ------------------------------------ To leave this talk list send an email to macjordomo@smithmicro.com with BODY unsubscribe WebDNA-Talk ------------------------------------ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (Grant Hulbert 1997)
  2. Re: PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (John Hill 1997)
  3. Re: PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (Sven U. Grenander 1997)
  4. Re: PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (Kenneth Grome 1997)
  5. PSC recommends what date format yr 2000??? (grichter@panavise.com (Gary Richter) 1997)
>Just realized in doing some date work, were I want to sort on the year, >then the month, and then the day. Put in some test data as year 2001 >Duh...I assume we should all be considering using the %Y vs the %y with the >year 2000 coming up. Sorting on 99 vs 00 is gonna drive me crazy in 3 >years as to which is higher, vs sorting on 1999 vs 2000. Just thought I >would throw this out to people on this list to consider. Comments anybody.Yes, everyone would be well-advised to use %Y instead of %y for their 'year' format choice in storing dates. This will help you to avoid the 'year 2000' date problem many legacy database systems will have to deal with in a couple of years. No sense in creating future problems for yourself just to save a few bytes in your database records, especially when WebCat2 is so fast anyways ... right? :)Sincerely, Ken ------------------------------------ To leave this Talk List send an email to macjordomo@smithmicro.com with BODY unsubscribe WebDNA-Talk ------------------------------------ Kenneth Grome

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

WebDNA Solutions ... (1997) ShowIf variables (1997) vs (1997) Password Question (2003) Fun with dates (1997) WebCatalog can't find database (1997) Emailer setup (1997) RE: includes and cart numbers (1997) WebCommerce: Folder organization ? (1997) Undeliverable Mail (1997) Append database (1999) [WebDNA] [BULK] The WebDAV Server Module / web services (2012) carriage returns in data (1997) Configuring E-mail (1997) a new bug? (1999) carriage returns in data (1997) Re2: frames & carts (1997) Close-to Comparison Code (1998) [WebDNA] includes with includes (2009) [WebDNA] xmlparse of POST (2014)