Test Issue with win32_popen was [ANN] win32_popen 0.1

ruby-talk
1

I think it should be YYYYY. That way we’re y10k compliant. No point
putting it off. Look where that got us last time!

:stuck_out_tongue:

Ok, back to work.

Dan

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert McGovern [mailto:robertm@spellmanhv.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:22 AM
To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Subject: Re: Test Issue with win32_popen was [ANN] win32_popen 0.1

Surely YYYY-MM-DD is the only intelligent date format. No
confusion
whatsoever. Since the Y2K fiasco, I’ve never seen any advantage in
abbreviating the year, even in informal writing.

Agreed, I always use YYYY-MM-DD now and will always write the
year out
as YYYY on both formal & informal documents.

I’m working on the principle that if enough of us do it there
won’t be a
problem again in 97 years.

Rob

2

Hi,

···

At Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:24:33 +0900, Berger, Daniel djberge@qwest.com wrote:

I think it should be YYYYY. That way we’re y10k compliant. No point
putting it off. Look where that got us last time!

You ran into Y100k, Y1M and Y10**30 problems now, refer
RFC2550.

–
Nobu Nakada