Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 05:10:05 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: the-candyden-of-code
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <slrn1010nl6.2t91c.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com> <vt1a7f$i5jd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vti36r$g4nu$2@dont-email.me>
 <slrnvvqhmc.2eh69.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
 <vtjknt$1sp26$1@dont-email.me> <vtk2f9$295ku$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtka7u$2ddeu$1@dont-email.me> <CNtLP.2611170$TBhc.2589292@fx16.iad>
 <vtm71q$78l6$3@dont-email.me> <87plhd0z76.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <slrnvvvdch.3gc99.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
 <87cydb28gu.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <S2ULP.1346551$BrX.394554@fx12.iad> <vup5d4$fjmk$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 07:10:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="de88da8ee25d9a403e44cdb500497ffb";
	logging-data="1129337"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18xuJL9gYFAaRr0zHPS7dTfnnHRbbklMCWtsDSEu2LQeA=="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:crk9vwZpIhUr04yiJHfvHyJ5+CI=
X-Face: b{dPmN&%4|lEo,wUO\"KLEOu5N_br(N2Yuc5/qcR5i>9-!^e\.Tw9?/m0}/~:UOM:Zf]%
 b+ V4R8q|QiU/R8\|G\WpC`-s?=)\fbtNc&=/a3a)r7xbRI]Vl)r<%PTriJ3pGpl_/B6!8pe\btzx
 `~R! r3.0#lHRE+^Gro0[cjsban'vZ#j7,?I/tHk{s=TFJ:H?~=]`O*~3ZX`qik`b:.gVIc-[$t/e
 ZrQsWJ >|l^I_[pbsIqwoz.WGA]<D

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote at 00:10 this Tuesday (GMT):
> [ Just noticed this post while catching up in my backlog, so I'm not
>   sure my questions/comments have already been addressed elsewhere. ]
>
> On 16.04.2025 22:04, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> [...]
>> 
>> Back in the mainframe days, it was common to use julian dates
>> as they were both concise (5 BCD digits/20 bits) and sortable.
>> 
>>   YYDDD
>> 
>> If time was neeeded, it was seconds since midnight in a reference
>> timezone.
>
> I don't quite understand the rationale behind all that said above.
>
> "YYDDD" was used without century information? How is that useful?
> (I assume it's just the popular laziness that later lead to all the
> Y2k chaos activities.)
[snip]


I believe the current rule for software is to consider "39" the cutoff,
ie 39 is considered 2039, and 40 is considered 1940. I agree though,
removing the century is a bad idea for anything that is supposed to be
kept for a length of time.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom