14 Jul
2012
14 Jul
'12
6:31 a.m.
At 05:17 AM 7/13/2012, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Ooo. So TECO-8 actually lie in their documentation...
Even worse.
A year in the range 1986-1994 would just have looked like 1970-1977.
That's ugly of them.
You're quite correct. Clearly this *is* a TECO-8 bug - I thought it was
at least following the docs but they're just ignoring the high-order
date bit. Unfortunately, fixing this (as in making it compliant with
the documentation) isn't easy as that page is full. And "fixing" it
would just give different wrong values since you can't squash 14 bits
into 13.
Mea culpa. TECO Fail, indeed.
-Rick