I know that, except it counts dates from 1970, so 2009 becomes 39, and it counts months from 0, so August would not be 8, but 7.Originally Posted by whiteflags
Confusing, but true. Semi-human readable format if you ask me.
Then I blame poor documentation. I don't remember, but I don't think there was/is any such thing.Since Y2K a different field has been introduced for the full year: You were probably using the legacy field.
As a programmer, I think it's natural for the months to be zero indexed (just like arrays are).and it counts months from 0, so August would not be 8, but 7.
The documentation is not at fault, it's all in my head, unfortunately. I made a mistake.Then I blame poor documentation. I don't remember, but I don't think there was/is any such thing.I'm putting the subject at rest though. We'll have to discuss it elsewhere.
It feels more natural to me that if I say it's month 8, then it's month 8.
This is human readable format, after all, not programming format.
This reminds me of:
xkcd - A Webcomic - 2038
(read the tool tip too!)
My homepage
Advice: Take only as directed - If symptoms persist, please see your debugger
Linus Torvalds: "But it clearly is the only right way. The fact that everybody else does it some other way only means that they are wrong"
