3 Comments
Recent Comments
- Joel Stobart on GB-0250
- Matt on NZ-0030
- Matt on IR-0009
- The Open Sourcerer on FR-0087
- Andre on IN-0002
- Andre on SG-0001
- Yoon-Kit Yong on MY-0006
- Yoon-Kit Yong on MY-0005
- Yoon-Kit Yong on MY-0001
- Alan Bell on CO-0158
- hAl on GB-0634
- The Open Sourcerer » Get your five a day at dis29500.org on CO-0158
- Alan Bell on CO-0097
- Luc Bollen on FR-0522
- Alan Bell on DK-0092
Very Substantive. This points to a fundamental failure of the proposal, and should be discussed in detail at the BRM.
yes, but we need to find the very best 1904/dual date format issue
I think perhaps IN - IN80 or PT - 85 I think I prefer the text of IN - IN80 but PT - 85 has the cracking suggestion of “doWrongDateCalculationsLikeExcel”