| From: | Duane McDonnell |
| Date: | 24 Dec 99 at 07:54:13 |
| Subject: | AW: Re: Version String, CPU detection |
From: Duane McDonnell <dmcdonnell@primus.com.au>
Please excuse my date woes people ;-)
I sent a message earlier this morning after a crash and that got
dated 1992 due to my RTC bombing out, and now it's 2000 since I'm
trying to Y2K fix a commercial accounting application which is
going to fall over in a big fat heap next week (yes folks, some
commercial Amiga apps aren't going to work at all..)
Now I'm going to triple check my time setting before hitting the
"Send" button. Here I go...
Merry XMas to all, and a happy Y2K :-)
>From: Duane McDonnell <dmcdonnell@primus.com.au>
>>From: Fritsch Alexander <Alexander.Fritsch@icn.siemens.de>
>>Thanks to all for the replies.
>>I will of course use the format from the style guide.
>>According to my tests and your suggestions my fault was the 4-digit-year.
>>(19.12.1999). If I use only (19.12.99) all works fine. But what should I do
>>next year?
>Olaf says to use 2000, which strictly speaking breaks the published
>specification (Olaf: perhaps Version should be changed to re-interpret
>00 - 45 as being 2000 - 2045 and uploaded to Aminet?)
>> Should I use 00? Do we have a Y2K-problem here? (I think of
>>discriminating newer versions from older)
>I have no idea :-)
>A warning to SAS/C users: __AMIGADATE__ shouldn't be used either.
>It strips leading 0's in the year too, so 2000 is output as 0,
>for example, (1.1.0). This is with 6.58, perhaps the updates
>have resolved this (and if so, how?)