Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"

On 29/04/2025 19:02, BGB wrote:

On 4/29/2025 12:24 AM, James Kuyper wrote:

On 4/29/25 01:10, candycanearter07 wrote:
...

I believe the current rule for software is to consider "39" the cutoff,
ie 39 is considered 2039, and 40 is considered 1940. I agree though,
removing the century is a bad idea for anything that is supposed to be
kept for a length of time.

>
I sincerely doubt that there is any unique current rule for interpreting
two-digit year numbers - just a wide variety of different rules used by
different people for different purposes. That's part of the reason why
it's a bad idea to rely upon such rules.

 Could always argue for a compromise, say, 1 signed byte year.
   Say: 1872 to 2127, if origin is 2000.
Could also be 2 digits if expressed in hexadecimal.
 Or, maybe 1612 BC to 5612 AD if the year were 2 digits in Base 85.
   Or, 48 BC to 4048 AD with Base 64.

Or we could argue for any of a thousand other ideas for rules... and more besides. As a very wise man recently said: "That's part of the reason why it's a bad idea to rely upon such rules."
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within