Andy Wood wrote:
> Steve Myers <noone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[snip]
> I still say it was a mistake. They should have added another option to
> get a four digit year instead (as was later done anyway with
> LINKAGE=SYSTEM).
[snip]
> Andy Wood
> woodag@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
it did allow the year to be a continuum, e.g., 99 flowed
to 100, provided the program recognized it as such. In that
sense I believe the IBM solution may have been the most viable of
the several options available to them.
In truth, none of the options IBM had in the middle 80s was very
"nice", in part because of the design decision in 1964/1965 about
the original TIME service, where I suspect the issue had more to
do with 3 data bytes rather than 4 bytes.
If you want to talk about DUMB, look at the definition of the the
value returned by the C standard library TIME function, with it's
1970 base.
|
