Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:25:00 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <vur5hs$28kc4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <87y0wjaysg.fsf@gmail.com> <vt1a7f$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <slrn1010nl6.2t91c.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
 <vupnq4$tbfj$2@dont-email.me> <vur4fm$2c2qa$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 20:25:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a99ce2d194518084f1e3236eb6fd133d";
	logging-data="2380164"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qw91HEwoK/Mcehu05FGVRoFRg5dXuQ1sqAOPcJ4OkMA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tpXutCi/fgZgmUTjAwEeykfYaQs=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vur4fm$2c2qa$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3011

On 29/04/2025 19:02, BGB wrote:
> On 4/29/2025 12:24 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 4/29/25 01:10, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> ...
>>> 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.
>>
>> I sincerely doubt that there is any unique current rule for 
>> interpreting
>> two-digit year numbers - just a wide variety of different rules 
>> used by
>> different people for different purposes. That's part of the 
>> reason why
>> it's a bad idea to rely upon such rules.
> 
> Could always argue for a compromise, say, 1 signed byte year.
>    Say: 1872 to 2127, if origin is 2000.
> Could also be 2 digits if expressed in hexadecimal.
> 
> Or, maybe 1612 BC to 5612 AD if the year were 2 digits in Base 85.
>    Or, 48 BC to 4048 AD with Base 64.

Or we could argue for any of a thousand other ideas for rules... 
and more besides. As a very wise man recently said: "That's part 
of the reason why it's a bad idea to rely upon such rules."

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within