From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Mark A Biggar Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/08 Message-ID: <35F5BF18.C1D71B@lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 389205509 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <6r1glm$bvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@ <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sf87j$47n$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sh6ic$o8p$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6shhcq$lid$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sk59r$8e6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6ske0c$16k$1@hirame.wwa.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Lockheed Martin Western Development Labs Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Giovanni 8 wrote: > Good point. I've run into things like health care data. Looking > at the data in the data base, one must ask: Was that person born > in 1985 or was it 1885? Since a growing number of people are > living more than 100 years, it's a significant problem. This is exactly the situation my sister ran into. She works in the perscription claims processing group of a large health insurance company and they just went through a whole Y2K evaluation of their databases. What they discovered was that even though the database used 2 digit years all over the place, they actually had almost no Y2K problems. This was because the only dates where 2 vs 4 digits really mattered in the DB was for birthdates, which had always been stored in theire DB with 4 digits because when the DB first came on line in the mid 80's they had to correctly handle 90+ year old people born before 1900. All other dates in the DB where effectively some form of expiration date, none of which are before 1980. So there were only a few places where they had to tweek the code to think that years 00-79 corresponded to 2000-2079 (most of the code already made this assumption) and didn't have to change the DB at all. So, I guess they lucked out! -- Mark Biggar mark.a.biggar@lmco.com