Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 64 of 64
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    691
    Your "timestamp" only has the date, month, and year. There's no hours, minutes, or seconds so your script can't decide any more accurately than that whether its the 19th or 20th. You'll need to decide what values to use for the hour and minute if you want it to be more precise than that.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    984
    Marvelous. You're absolutely right. I knew someone would be able to discover the truth about this function. Very well, thanks very much for your assistance on this.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    691
    No problem

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kuwait
    Posts
    5,104
    I knew someone would be able to discover the truth about this function.
    The truth about this function was discovered by many people on page 2 of this uneccessarily long thread, and was clearly summarized by maximyzer.

    1. You don't know the difference between a timestamp and a date field. I suggest you read up on this.

    2. Do not assume anything about a database or a function. Just because you "see" something is not empty in a table, doesn't mean that it is going to be that way in your code. You might see 2006-08-20, and it looks like a date, but it may be stored as a string.

    3. When people ask for something, instead of ignoring them, oblige them with what they ask. There is a reason why they are asking, because they believe (rightly so) that it is the source of the problem, instead of assuming you know the cause.

    To be honest, I'm surprised people actually stuck out this long. With your attitude, I wouldn't even have posted past the first page. You should really be grateful.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    984
    I really don't see the point of this argument, since this matter has been resolved. If it has taken three pages to resolved it, it's because the solution wasn't discovered until the end of this page.

    1. I may not know the difference the timestamp and the date field, since I didn't built this date function all by myself.

    2. Do not assume anything about a database or a function. Just because you "see" something is not empty in a table, doesn't mean that it is going to be that way in your code. You might see 2006-08-20, and it looks like a date, but it may be stored as a string.
    Don't take it wrong there, but I didn't understood a word of what you said.

    3. When people ask for something, instead of ignoring them, oblige them with what they ask. There is a reason why they are asking, because they believe (rightly so) that it is the source of the problem, instead of assuming you know the cause.
    Wrong. I knew what the problem was all along and it was about a faultly coded function and it has, now, been resolved.

    To be honest, I'm surprised people actually stuck out this long.
    Then, it would seem that I was on the right track for this post since you seem to have missed the point on why it did took three pages.

    With your attitude, I wouldn't even have posted past the first page.
    If it's your opinion, simply don't post since I was simply looking for a very specific solution in order to resolve this issue.

    You should really be grateful.
    If I read this entire topic, again, I do not see anywhere where I was ungrateful.

    Please keep your critisism for yourself next time since, from this page, I thanked brendandonhu for his help on this matter. If this isn't satisfactory enough for you, then - please - don't post.

    Thanks for your understanding.

  6. #56
    horizon, fyrestrtr was right. It took 3 pages for you to finally tell us what's stored in your table (2006-08-20).

    Ok, it's one thing if you are not familliar with terms like timestamp, string, integer, null etc., it's perfectly understandable. But it's completely another thing when you ignore people who are trying to help you and who are asking you for some feedback from your side.

    Yes, the matter is resolved because brendanhou has nerves of steel, I personally didn't want to help you any further. Every person in this topic knew what the problem was, it was just your attitude and stubbornes that delayed the solution and that's all. And this problem was so trivial, it's just amazing that it took 3 pages..

    You took the criticism from fyrestrtr in the wrong way, which is a bit sad since his intention wasn't to flame you but to instruct you on how to help people to help you and how to act as a community member.

    And in the end, there was nothing wrong with the function. Your function worked great from the start. You were passing wrong things to the function. It's like trying to make a pizza with a brick and blaming the stowe for not making the meal properly.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    984
    Without wanting to argu further on this, it took three pages since the solution wasn't found until now. It works great and I'm grateful for it. Point made.

  8. #58
    I just can't help it - solution to your problem wasn't "found", people were trying to EXPLAIN to you that you're not giving enough input. I am sorry for not knowing japanese or other languages as it seems that you do not understand what I am trying to say. Anyway, it's great that your "problem" is solved, but be more considerate in the future. Thank YOU for understanding. Good luck with further development.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    984
    Dude, don't take it wrong there - but if you take a look at your latest posted solution - which was this one:

    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpo...2&postcount=40

    your technical advise was that there were no more solution when there was one. Since brendandonhu shorted it up under two single posts, it would seem that it was your last inputs that didn't helped out, as it made prolongation to this topic.

    Meaning, if you did not know how to, first, post a technical solution, then - please - don't post it at all and let other experienced users to post their modifications the way it should be correctly handled (especially when it comes from a faulty function issue).

    To conclude, if this topic contained more than three pages, you should notice that other users added their inputs, regardless this subject, which made a prolongation of these posts.

    With that all said, the final response was posted on two solutions, which was posted by: brendandonhu, and it works - period.

    Again, thanks for your understanding on this matter since posters should not be critisized over technical methods that are officially working (or close).

  10. #60
    I take it that you also require a lesson in something called sarcasm

    I've dealt with enough children in my life and I see no point in further communicating with you, "dude".

    Thanks for your understanding, you are free to read the article found at the address posted above.
    Best of luck in further development.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    259
    if you are storing the timezone offset as a string, then try:

    PHP Code:
    $offset '+5';

    echo 
    date 'Ymd H:i:s'strtotime $offset ' hours' ) ); 

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    984
    Sorry. Can't be done this way since I'm using SQL date and time fields for timestamp.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    60

    very own

    when PHP has its own calender why should'not you use them ?
    the playing with a lot of own functions indulge us in jargon .

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    984
    when PHP has its own calender why should'not you use them ?
    Because of timezones.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •