At 13:34 2009-09-16, MB Software Solutions General Account 
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> > At 15:38 2009-09-15, Stephen Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Roll another one!
> >
> > [snip nasty examples]
> >
> >> See why there isn't one?  :)
> >
> >       The same argument can be applied to gomonth().  What is one
> > month after 2009-02-28?  gomonth() says March 28th, but March 31st is
> > also defensible.
>
>One month after February 28 *is* March 28th, Gene!  If you want "end of

      It can be, but it does not have to be.

      You are in the interesting position of having to defend that 
one month after the end of a month might well not be the end of a 
month.  Odd how it does work for the first, the second, etc.

      Even more fun, you are in the position of having to defend that 
one month later than one month later is not necessarily two months later.
           ? gomonth({^2009.05.31},2)     && 2009-07-31
           ? gomonth(gomonth({^2009.05.31},1),1)     && 2009-07-30

      Possibly, this meets your needs.  It does not meet mine.  <VBGST>*

* I have just coined an acronym.  You saw it first here, folks!
      VBGST = Verg Big Grin Showing Teeth

>next month", that's where Ed Leafe's "LastDayOfMonth" function is
>perfect for this.  "One month later" <> "LastDayOfMonth" ... the 30/31
>day months are easy examples of this too.

      I have written a wrapper around gomonth() to get the end of 
month handling that I need, too.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko



_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to