[DGD] Re: DGD Y2K proof?

[Wim van der Vegt]

Hi,

-----Original Message-----
From: harte at xs4all.nl <harte at xs4all.nl>
To: dgd at list.imaginary.com <dgd at list.imaginary.com>
Date: zondag 31 mei 1998 21:32
Subject: [DGD] Re: DGD Y2K proof?


>I assume you mean year 2000. :-)


It seems i have a small Y2K problem myself *grin*...

>There are two ways in which you could run into trouble with DGD, as far
>as the Y2K problem goes (that I can see):
>
>1. The time() kfun screws up when the year 2000 starts.
>
>   This entirely depends on your operating system and/or hardware.
>
>   I have no idea if W95 or NT are Y2K-compliant, but any unix that I
>   know will function quite happily until at least January 19 04:14:07
>   of the year 2038, and I assume that by then most of them will have
>   been upgraded to versions that use more data to store the number
>   of seconds passed since 1970.


NT4 should run fine after 2000 too but it's first 4 milennium patches are
already there (mostly fixing very obscure date/time manipulations around
2000). Win95 will probeably be not supported after 2000 if we look at the
legal bussines microsoft is currently involved in. Most of the time it's not
so much the os that fault's but the applications running on it.

>   At any rate, DGD uses that value directly, and the only one
>   interpreting it is 'ctime()', which does so correctly, so I don't
>   see any problems there.


I've got the strftime installed too (besides ctime()). I'll have to look
into that one anyway as in it's standard form refuses to compile under
win95/winnt anyway (something with the timezones is missing).

>2. You store or make calculations/comparisons about/with years using
>   only 2 of the 4 digits in the year-position.
>
>   Here DGD can do all it wants, but it can't help you if you write
>   programs like that.


Pretty obvious, if Felix didn't make any mistakes, we may... Btw doesn't he
use any form of timestamping on the objects itself?

>Hope this helps a bit,


It sure does..

>Erwin -- Hmpf, I thought DGD was supposed to be fun and play, this
>         sounds more like work to me. :-)


Sure it's fun, i spend my whole day off applying dgdg patches to catch up.
It's more that i want to have fun after 2000 too...

-----------
Wim van der Vegt




List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd