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.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
