On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Andrzej P. Wozniak wrote:
Hi Andrzej,
> > I allways was creatting and changing my database structures with my old
> > dBase III plus.
>
> DBase III+ is not fully Y2k compliant.
I do not agree with you.
It's a classic example what happens when someone tries to "FIX"
something what should not be fixed at all.
There was not Y2K problem and it was precisely defined that last
two digits from the year should be saved in header. Quite good
definition. Unfortunately someone decided that it's time to break
this definition and store year-1900 and now we have real Y2K
problem created by this decision and older tools which makes
strict header validation refuse to open such tables.
There is nice table on the first page which well shows that the
definition should not be touched at all and nothing wrong would
happen - full backward compatibility.
Probably I should add new RDDI_* action to force strict DBF header
definition and storing year as last two digits to eliminate this
problem.
best regards,
Przemek