Date:         Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:37:35 +1100
Reply-To:     Tim CHURCHES <TCHUR@DOH.HEALTH.NSW.GOV.AU>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Tim CHURCHES <TCHUR@DOH.HEALTH.NSW.GOV.AU>
Subject:      Re: Your suggestion
Comments: To: JackHamilton@FIRSTHEALTH.COM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

>>> Jack Hamilton <JackHamilton@FIRSTHEALTH.COM> 11/19/99 11:55am >>> writes:
> "Fehd, Ronald J." <rjf2@CDC.GOV> wrote:
> > http://www.sas.com/service/techsup/feedback/ballot00.html
> >
> > wow, this thing is already huge!
>
> But its name isn't Y2K compliant.  I guess the message hasn't gotten through yet.  ;-)

Well, it depends on your definition of Y2K compliant. Some definitions only demand
4 digit years where ambiguities in the implied century exist. Now SAS has been around
for a long time, but not since 1900, no matter how antique it seems at times...

And while on the subject of antique software and Y2K, I suspect that many users of SAS
have libraries full of datasets like:

DEATHS96
DEATHS97
DEATHS98
DEATHS99

Guess where next year's dataset will sort... It would have been really nice to have been able
to fix this by extending the dataset names by 2 characters to DEATHS1999 etc, but SI completely
missed the deadline for shipping a production Version 8 which would have allowed this.

Tim Churches