From: Kenny McCormack on
In article <hrmf7b$36c$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
....
>But you have a point that in this case (where the date information
>starts with field 1) it can as well be simplified as you proposed.

Yes, it's convenient, but not really necessary.

The whole point of ISO date format is that it is a specific instance of
the general principle of ordering the information in a string from most
significant on the left to least significant on the right, so that it
sorts "correctly".

My first thought on seeing this problem was that you should just
concatenate the two fields together and then compare them. So, say, the
date was in field 10 and the time in field 3, you would do:

$10 " " $3 >= "2010-04-27 03:20:00"

--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)

Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...

From: Janis Papanagnou on
Kenny McCormack schrieb:
> [...]
>
> My first thought on seeing this problem was that you should just
> concatenate the two fields together and then compare them. So, say, the
> date was in field 10 and the time in field 3, you would do:
>
> $10 " " $3 >= "2010-04-27 03:20:00"

Simple and most flexible. I like it.

Janis