On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:15 PM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:02 AM Bob van der Poel <b...@mellowood.ca> wrote: > > > > I'm surprised that no one has yet addressed the year 10000 problem. > Hopefully we're doing numeric, not alpha sorts on the stuff before the 1st > '-'. And, the compact versions will really screw up :). > > > > Compact versions? You mean non-delimited dates? They sort just fine > numerically: > > 20190204 > 99991231 > 100000101 > > They also sort just fine if you add a two-digit serial number: > > 2017081702 > 2017120801 > 2019011300 > > and while it's true that this format will overflow in two thousand > years if stored in a 32-bit number, it's fine for arbitrary future > dates if stored in bignums. > Yes, 99991231 100000101 will wort properly if numeric. But, if we use the ISO recommended 9999-12-31 10000-01-01 then we'd most likely do an alpha sort ... opps, you're right! That works fine as well. Guess there is no year 10000 problem :) -- **** Listen to my FREE CD at http://www.mellowood.ca/music/cedars **** Bob van der Poel ** Wynndel, British Columbia, CANADA ** EMAIL: b...@mellowood.ca WWW: http://www.mellowood.ca -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
