On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 12:46, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > 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".
> >
>
> My assumption is that we already handlle these OK because we base it on
> datestyle.
According to the OP, no.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| 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) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------
