On Jun 25, 8:44 pm, Steve Myers <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Andy Wood wrote:
> > Steve Myers <n...@[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
> > woo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> However, 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.
It's the do***entation that's silly. There is no "century indicator",
there
is simply a 3-digit field showing years-since-1900, and it is good way
beyond
the life of the 64-bit TOD, namely until 2899. (A "century indicator"
would
have been a pain, as it should have turned on on Jan 1, 2001, not in
2000.)
Michel.
|
