Re: bug with date_convert_universal()

On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 01:23:16PM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
> yes , the leap year calculation expects month to be 0 based, as in the
> comments at date.h. something has to be done - I don't really mind what
> - as long as the current situation is solved as quickly as possible.

Okay, someone sent me the CMG EMI 3.5 spec.  The only specification
of the date format it has is "DDMMYYhhmmss" without further explanation.
Since we have evidence of at least one EMI SMSC using 1-based months,
shall we assume that they all do?  It would make sense, if the lack of
specification means that the date format is intended to be human-readable.

-- 
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html