# Converting and Comparing Dates

Why do I get the same value of 36597 when I type the following in the Immediate Window:
debug.print cdbl(datevalue, "March 12, 2000"))
debug.print cdbl(datevalue, "March 12, 00"))
debug.print cdbl(datevalue, "March 12, 0000"))

I also get the same value of 36926 when I key in the following:
debug.print cdbl(datevalue, "March 12, 2001"))
debug.print cdbl(datevalue, "March 12, 01"))
debug.print cdbl(datevalue, "March 12, 0001"))

I am trying to find a reliable way to compare dates.

Sheila
###### Who is Participating?

Commented:
Thanks baileys, glad I could help explain it!
0

Commented:
Honest, I'm not trying to be a smart alec but whay are you converting it to a double?  Why not convert it to a date variant? I have always found this method reliable...
0

Commented:
trkcorp, that's not a very helpful answer you gave baileys. It ignores the real problem - I think date variants will have the exact same problem. If this isn't the case, then post an example using date variants which works on the above strings.

The real problem is in the datevalue function which converts a string to an internal date. It is documented (in the VB help) as not working on dates before 100AD, which is why March 12, 0001 won't work.

Ignoring years before 100 AD allows VB to assume a year < 100 is just a 2 digit year, and so it automatically adds the century. But then it has to decide which century. For years < 30 it assumes the 21st century, years 30 or more it assumes 1900s (the cutoff point is January 1 30). This is a popular way to "quick fix" Year 2000 problems: instead of increasing the number of digits for the year instead slide the 100-year "window" forward so that a 2 digit year can still work past 1999. This is a lousy way to do it, but sometimes it's that or nothing.

I am assuming < year 1600 or > year 9999 isn't a concern. If you need dates older than about 1600, you will have problems, you'll need Julian dates and those will work back until several thousand BC.

So, if you make sure you use 4 digit years comparing dates the way you are will work just fine (and is the same I believe as using date variants).  Hope this helps!
0

Commented:
alamo, you are correct about date span validity and baileys needs to know those limitations.  I was a little brash.  Excusez mois.
0

Author Commented:
I like alamo explanation.
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.