Re: Question: How will the Year 2000 bug impact your work?

Joel Garry (joelga@rossinc.com) wrote: : In article <54mbdn$1hs@decaxp.harvard.edu> torrez@law.harvard.edu writes: : >Colin Thompson <Colin_Thompson@perth.ccmail.compuserve.com> wrote: : >I have to think this would be the case with a lot of systems. I have : >to get rid of all the "short dates" in our Access order entry system : >before the end of this quarter because three-year payment terms are : >standard for one of our products. : : Access hasn't been around that long, not much excuse for that problem. I don't understand. "Short date" is a format, not a data type. The date is still stored in long form, and you can type in a 4-digit year. It just won't _display_ as a 4-digit year. Unless it's an historical bibliography, there will be little ambiguity for the viewer of date fields displayed with only 2 digits for the years. Further, formats can be set in the table, but overridden in forms, reports and queries. I just don't see what the problem is here in most cases. Masks are another issue entirely. David W. Fenton | New York University | The way of stylistic tolerance dfenton@bway.net | dwf4930@is2.nyu.edu | may lead to the final horror of http://www.bway.net/~dfenton | John Tesh. --Alex Ross, NYTimes