Issue with TIME fields.

[Joakim Schramm]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: valentina-bounces at lists.macserve.net 
> [mailto:valentina-bounces at lists.macserve.net] On Behalf Of 
> Ruslan Zasukhin
> Sent: 13 September 2006 14:26
> To: valentina at lists.macserve.net
> Subject: Re: Issue with TIME fields.
> 
> On 9/13/06 3:12 PM, "Joakim Schramm" <joakim at astrocalc.com> wrote:
> 
> >>     Ivan today will improve all str => date/time functions
> >>     to do VERY strict checks of string on format.
> >>     any mistake => refuse and exception.
> >> 
> >> In this way we will never allow put into db e.g. Hours == 13.
> >> Up to know Valentina did allow this always.
> >> 
> > Just a quick reflexion before you do something bad... there is 
> > actually 24 hours in a day and something called 24 hours 
> format, not 
> > all (far from I
> > think) uses 0-12 AM/PM you know. It should at least allow 
> > 0-23:59:59:999
> 
> Ops, sorry, my bad example. :)
> 
> Yes of course:  Hours = 25  -> refuse.
> 
Sounds better, technically the day ends at 23:59:59:999 BUT in some
occations 24:00:00:000 also is usable although it "technically" is equal
with 0:00:00:000 the next day. I am a bit hesitate though if it's sane to
store a value of 24:00:00:000, I think it should be 23:59:59:999 maximun as
next tick means next day and the time should be reset to 0:00:00:000 OR
there may be confusion about wich day and time... You see my point?

Joakim
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> 
> Ruslan Zasukhin
> VP Engineering and New Technology
> Paradigma Software, Inc
> 
> Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information http://www.paradigmasoft.com
> 
> [I feel the need: the need for speed]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Valentina mailing list
> Valentina at lists.macserve.net
> http://lists.macserve.net/mailman/listinfo/valentina
>