On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 00:05, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Reading the subject, "creepy ... dates", that is exactly how I feel
> > about the described current date behavior --- "creepy".
> >
> > Because I have only seen one person defend our current behavior, and
> > many object, I am going to add to TODO:
> >
> > * Allow current datestyle to restrict dates; prevent month/day swapping
> > from making invalid dates valid?
> > * Prevent month/day swapping of ISO dates to make invalid dates valid
>
> I added a question mark to the first item so we can consider it later.
> Most agreed on the second item, but a few thought the first one might be
> OK as is.
How about situations where reversing the month and date would
still have "valid but wrong" dates, based upon the LOCALE mask?
I.e., "05/04/2003" is "05-April-2003" or "04-May-2003", depending
on whether the LOCALE implies "DD/MM/YYYY" or "MM/DD/YYYY".
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson |
| |
| "Oh, great altar of passive entertainment, bestow upon me |
| thy discordant images at such speed as to render linear |
| thought impossible" (Calvin, regarding TV) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------
