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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Y2.1K (was: Ada vs C++ vs Java) Date: 1999/01/24 Message-ID: <78i6m1$505$3@plug.news.pipex.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 436727947 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369CBAED.20BE91CA@pwfl.com> <369CF2EF.AC875B2A@gecm.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom) Keywords: Calendar; Y2K Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-01-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: David Gillon wrote in message <369CF2EF.AC875B2A@gecm.com>... [...] |for continuing Ada based software support, past 2050 at least. The same |goes for 777, and given that 747 is still in active development of new |variants 30 years after service entry 2050 may be a conservative |estimate. [...] Which causes me to renew my concerns about Ada's 'Y2.1K' problem. I can honestly just see a whole squadron of F39 'Ares' superstealth pilotless lazergun jet platforms (or whatever they hype them up as) - on a fly-past of honour for the new year, 2100 AD - dropping out of the sky straight onto a crowd of horrified USAF Generals. Why? Take a look at Ada.Calendar. As a matter of interest, if I were to declare Ada.Calendar.Year_Number as having the range 0001..9999 (in line with the standard SQL definition of a year), instead of 1901..2099 as required in the RM, would this be likely to cause my compiler to fail the ACVC? Would it actually be a problem to anyone (porting their existing code to my compiler)? Obviously it would potentially be a problem to anyone requiring portability: but not if they wrote their code carefully. Would anyone object? I realise I would have to ensure the Ada.Calendar.Time type was able to encompass these years, and that I would have to ensure leap years were calculated correctly. I would use an assumed Gregorian calendar for all dates (as specified for SQL). ------------------------------------------- Nick Roberts -------------------------------------------