On 01/24/2012 06:51 PM, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] wrote:
$ date -d '500 years ago'
Now use cal to get a calendar of that month. Do days of the week
correspond?
Another experiment on your SL box:
$ date -d 1752-09-10
This should give an error message, since (in Britain and its
Depe
cygwin sent the following at Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:00 AM
>I want to thank everybody that responded. It looks like you don't think
>this is a bug. Given that date seems to work as I expect on SL 6.0, I
>would like to make a feature request: "Fix the date command to actually
>respond with the d
On Jan 24 11:00, cygwin wrote:
> I want to thank everybody that responded. It looks like you don't
> think this is a bug. Given that date seems to work as I expect on SL
> 6.0, I would like to make a feature request: "Fix the date command
> to actually respond with the date"
It's not date's probl
I want to thank everybody that responded. It looks like you don't think
this is a bug. Given that date seems to work as I expect on SL 6.0, I
would like to make a feature request: "Fix the date command to actually
respond with the date"
Big Props to all you guys that make this software possib
Keith Christian sent the following at Monday, January 23, 2012 2:00 PM
>
>> cygwin sent the following at Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:39 PM
>
>On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]
> wrote:
>> /c> cal 9 1752
>> September 1752
>> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
>>1 2 14 1
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]
wrote:
> cygwin sent the following at Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:39 PM
> /c> cal 9 1752
> September 1752
> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
> 1 2 14 15 16
> 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
> 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
>
> Is this a bug?
Not a bug,
Greetings, cygwin!
> Thanks for corroborating my finding. Does anybody else think it is odd
> that this has not been pointed out before?
My Ubuntu Hardy box exhibiting the same behavior.
> Why would date use signed long integers to hold numbers of seconds?
Because, you know, UNIX time is a nu
cygwin sent the following at Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:39 PM
>Thanks for corroborating my finding.
I wasn't corroborating. You originally asked for debugging help and I
"debugged" it for you. Except that there was no bug. There was
"operator error".
>Does anybody else think it is odd
>that th
Thanks for corroborating my finding. Does anybody else think it is odd
that this has not been pointed out before? Why would date use signed
long integers to hold numbers of seconds? You would think this problem
would have been detected in like 1974 or so. Do I just suck it up, or
is there a
cygwin sent the following at Friday, January 20, 2012 7:34 PM
>I'm seeing a problem with my setup where the date command fails in an
>odd way:
>
>this is what it does: $ date -d '1 January 1900' date: invalid date `1
>January 1900'
>
>same thing on a linux box: $ date -d '1 January 1900' Mon Jan 1
Hi All,
I'm seeing a problem with my setup where the date command fails in an
odd way:
this is what it does:
$ date -d '1 January 1900'
date: invalid date `1 January 1900'
same thing on a linux box:
$ date -d '1 January 1900'
Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 PMT 1900
any dates after 1901 seem to work
11 matches
Mail list logo