On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Reading the subject, "creepy ... dates", that is exactly how I feel
> > about the described current date behavior --- "creepy".
> >
> > Because I have only seen one person defend our current behavior, and
> > many object, I am going to add to TODO:
> >
> > * Allow current datestyle to restrict dates; prevent month/day swapping
> > from making invalid dates valid?
> > * Prevent month/day swapping of ISO dates to make invalid dates valid
>
> I added a question mark to the first item so we can consider it later.
> Most agreed on the second item, but a few thought the first one might be
> OK as is.
What are ISO dates? Are those the ones like 22 Feb 2003? Just wondering.
The one thing that should absolutely be turned off is day/month swapping
on dates of the form: 2003-02-22.
I've seen little actual defense of the current behaviour, I'd say more
like questioning whether or not we should change directions in mid stream
than defense.