Quad TS 
Author Message
 Quad TS

Dear APLers

A while back I asked how many digits there were in the first element of
Quad-TS in your APL and which APL it was.  What a range of experience
has been reported!  Amazing.

First, the bad news.  APL, running on the IBM-5100 does not support
Quad-TS (or does it support I-beam 26) because there is no clock!  The
other, I-APL, depends on the implementation, in particular on whether
or not the system has a clock.  The most popular implemented systems
support four digits.  

One writer asked about these systems: Power APL, VIS APL, and HP4000.
It is almost certain that the latter one, from HP supports, a four digit
year. Can anyone report on the other two?  

All the rest of the APLs that were reported, support a four digit year.
Here is the list:

APL*PLUS II, APL*Plus v10, APL+DOS, APL+Win, APL.68000, APL/II, APL/SV,
APL2, APL22.2.00 (English) Version 2, Release 2, APL2 in  VM, APL2 in
DOS, APL2 in MVS, APL2 in OS/2, APL2000, APLIPC (Sharp APL v. 20), APLSE,
APLW, BoeingAPL, BorrughsAPL, DyalogAPL, DyalogAPL (MS-Windows),
DyalogAPL (X windows), DyalogAPL/W Version 8.0.10, IBMAPL/PC Version 1,
IBMAPL/PC Version 2 (not to be confused with APL2), IBMVM/CMS,
IBM/APL2on IBM/370, J from first to latest version 6!:0, PLUSPC,
PocketAPL (STSC), STSCAPL (PC), STSCAPL (mainframe), SharpAPL, TryAPL2,
VAXAPL, VSAPL, and Xerox APL.

The list of contributors (a sincere thank you to all):





        Braunschweig, Germany






Lamb adds that systems from Soliton are "year 2000 compliant".

Jones asks: "Of course the interesting question with these may be how
long DOS will report a workable year number! And do we blame DOS
(software) or BIOS (firmware) or hardware?."  I am not planning a
survey on this question.

Can anyone report on BIG-APL running on the WS-1?

Lee{*filter*}ey

--
Prof. Leroy J.{*filter*}ey, Faculty of Mathematics, U of Waterloo, Canada  N2L 3G1

          http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~ljdickey



Sat, 07 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Quad TS

Quote:

> Dear APLers

> A while back I asked how many digits there were in the first element of
> Quad-TS in your APL and which APL it was.  What a range of experience
> has been reported!  Amazing.

For the purpose of completeness, and in conjunction with the other thread
relating to cp/m APL versions, I can report that Quad D, under APL/V80
only allowed two digits for the year.  Quad D (system variables were
limited to one letter) was a six-digit integer, with two digits each for
the year, month and day.  

                                                    Les



Sun, 08 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Quad TS



---cut--

Quote:
>Jones asks: "Of course the interesting question with these may be how
>long DOS will report a workable year number! And do we blame DOS
>(software) or BIOS (firmware) or hardware?."  I am not planning a
>survey on this question.

I once worked out that the unix internal timestamp (used for files etc)
will overflow some time in 2038. (Its a 32 bit signed integer number of
seconds past midnight GMT January 1st 1970.)

Also, have you noticed that the DOS date command prompts for (dd-mm-yy),
but rejects all dates between 01-01-00  and 31-12-79 as an invalid date?
Try it!

Ray Cannon
Computer Consultant and Webmaster of www.vector.org.uk

Compuserve account 100430,740



Mon, 09 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Quad TS

Quote:



> ---cut--
> >Jones asks: "Of course the interesting question with these may be how
> >long DOS will report a workable year number! And do we blame DOS
> >(software) or BIOS (firmware) or hardware?."  I am not planning a
> >survey on this question.

> I once worked out that the unix internal timestamp (used for files etc)
> will overflow some time in 2038. (Its a 32 bit signed integer number of
> seconds past midnight GMT January 1st 1970.)

> Also, have you noticed that the DOS date command prompts for (dd-mm-yy),
> but rejects all dates between 01-01-00  and 31-12-79 as an invalid date?
> Try it!

> Ray Cannon
> Computer Consultant and Webmaster of www.vector.org.uk

> Compuserve account 100430,740

UNIX has fixed their 2038 time problem, at least, internally.


Mon, 09 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 Quad TS



Quote:


>---cut--
>>Jones asks: "Of course the interesting question with these may be how
>>long DOS will report a workable year number! And do we blame DOS
>>(software) or BIOS (firmware) or hardware?."  I am not planning a
>>survey on this question.

>I once worked out that the unix internal timestamp (used for files etc)
>will overflow some time in 2038. (Its a 32 bit signed integer number of
>seconds past midnight GMT January 1st 1970.)

>Also, have you noticed that the DOS date command prompts for (dd-mm-yy),
>but rejects all dates between 01-01-00  and 31-12-79 as an invalid date?
>Try it!

Ah, yes, but have you tried entering a 4-digit number for the year in
spite of the request for seemingly a 2-digit date. As Ray says, try it!

Quote:

>Ray Cannon
>Computer Consultant and Webmaster of www.vector.org.uk

>Compuserve account 100430,740

--
John Sullivan


Tue, 10 Aug 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 5 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Quad-TS survey

2. Ts 3.1 src in Ts 1.17

3. Arriving Soon in APL Quote Quad

4. Quote Quad

5. Gauss, +/(0={quad}io)+{iota}100

6. Now in December in APL Quote Quad

7. Coming in December in APL Quote Quad

8. Quad TF for APL+WIN 2000

9. Quote Quad Editorial Policy

10. APL Quote-Quad

11. Coming in June in APL Quote Quad

12. ASCII APL (Submission to APL Quote-Quad) *LONG*

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software