Silly me - I completely missed the possibility of user sloppiness!

Thanks Bruce

Jim N

>>Bruce,
>>
>>I've been following this and just have one simple question.
>>
>>Since there never was a year 0, and since year 0 is in the distant past (even if we allow that there may have been one), WHY is this a problem??? And dfoesn't VFP somewhere in the docs state that it is only good for dates from 18SomethingSomething and later, making this moot?
>
>You're logic is fine in theory, but the concern is about user data entry...if users get sloppy and enters year 0000, it should be handled consistently, not sometimes error, sometimes set to 1900...probably "invalid date" is the best way, I think...