Convert an Excel date code to a “date”
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Given a non-negative integer Excel-style date code, return the corresponding "date" in any reasonable form that clearly shows year, month, and "day".
Trivial, you may think. Did you notice the "scare quotes"? I used those because Excel has some quirks. Excel counts days with number 1 for Januray 1st, 1900, but as if 1900 had a January 0th and a February 29th, so be very careful to try all test cases:
Input → Output (example format)
0 → 1900-01-00 Note: NOT 1899-12-31
1 → 1900-01-01
2 → 1900-01-02
59 → 1900-02-28
60 → 1900-02-29 Note: NOT 1900-03-01
61 → 1900-03-01
100 → 1900-04-09
1000 → 1902-09-26
10000 → 1927-05-18
100000 → 2173-10-14
code-golf date conversion
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Given a non-negative integer Excel-style date code, return the corresponding "date" in any reasonable form that clearly shows year, month, and "day".
Trivial, you may think. Did you notice the "scare quotes"? I used those because Excel has some quirks. Excel counts days with number 1 for Januray 1st, 1900, but as if 1900 had a January 0th and a February 29th, so be very careful to try all test cases:
Input → Output (example format)
0 → 1900-01-00 Note: NOT 1899-12-31
1 → 1900-01-01
2 → 1900-01-02
59 → 1900-02-28
60 → 1900-02-29 Note: NOT 1900-03-01
61 → 1900-03-01
100 → 1900-04-09
1000 → 1902-09-26
10000 → 1927-05-18
100000 → 2173-10-14
code-golf date conversion
1
Does every year have a 0th of January and 29th of February or is 1900 the only anomaly?
– Shaggy
4 hours ago
1
1900 is the anomaly. Excel treats leap years correctly except for 1900 (which is not a leap year). But that was for compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3, where the bug originated.
– Rick Hitchcock
4 hours ago
@Shaggy Only 1900 is anomalous.
– Adám
4 hours ago
1
@RickHitchcock Apparently, the Lotus 1-2-3 devs did it to save on leap year code, such that the rule simply became every fourth year. With good reason too; 1900 was far in the past, and 2100 is, well, in a while.
– Adám
4 hours ago
1
@RickHitchcock It may very well be that the original Lotus 1-2-3 couldn't handle Y2K, and so Microsoft decided to mimic that one issue, but otherwise stay right. Btw, the legacy lives on: .NET's OADate has epoch 1899-12-30 so that it will line up with Excel on all but the first two months of 1900, however this necessitates theDayOfWeek
method because the original epoch, 1899-12-30 (or the fictive 1900-01-00) was chosen such that the weekday simply was the mod-7 of the day number, but that won't work with 1899-12-30.
– Adám
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Given a non-negative integer Excel-style date code, return the corresponding "date" in any reasonable form that clearly shows year, month, and "day".
Trivial, you may think. Did you notice the "scare quotes"? I used those because Excel has some quirks. Excel counts days with number 1 for Januray 1st, 1900, but as if 1900 had a January 0th and a February 29th, so be very careful to try all test cases:
Input → Output (example format)
0 → 1900-01-00 Note: NOT 1899-12-31
1 → 1900-01-01
2 → 1900-01-02
59 → 1900-02-28
60 → 1900-02-29 Note: NOT 1900-03-01
61 → 1900-03-01
100 → 1900-04-09
1000 → 1902-09-26
10000 → 1927-05-18
100000 → 2173-10-14
code-golf date conversion
Given a non-negative integer Excel-style date code, return the corresponding "date" in any reasonable form that clearly shows year, month, and "day".
Trivial, you may think. Did you notice the "scare quotes"? I used those because Excel has some quirks. Excel counts days with number 1 for Januray 1st, 1900, but as if 1900 had a January 0th and a February 29th, so be very careful to try all test cases:
Input → Output (example format)
0 → 1900-01-00 Note: NOT 1899-12-31
1 → 1900-01-01
2 → 1900-01-02
59 → 1900-02-28
60 → 1900-02-29 Note: NOT 1900-03-01
61 → 1900-03-01
100 → 1900-04-09
1000 → 1902-09-26
10000 → 1927-05-18
100000 → 2173-10-14
code-golf date conversion
code-golf date conversion
edited 4 hours ago
asked 5 hours ago
Adám
28.3k269186
28.3k269186
1
Does every year have a 0th of January and 29th of February or is 1900 the only anomaly?
– Shaggy
4 hours ago
1
1900 is the anomaly. Excel treats leap years correctly except for 1900 (which is not a leap year). But that was for compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3, where the bug originated.
– Rick Hitchcock
4 hours ago
@Shaggy Only 1900 is anomalous.
– Adám
4 hours ago
1
@RickHitchcock Apparently, the Lotus 1-2-3 devs did it to save on leap year code, such that the rule simply became every fourth year. With good reason too; 1900 was far in the past, and 2100 is, well, in a while.
– Adám
4 hours ago
1
@RickHitchcock It may very well be that the original Lotus 1-2-3 couldn't handle Y2K, and so Microsoft decided to mimic that one issue, but otherwise stay right. Btw, the legacy lives on: .NET's OADate has epoch 1899-12-30 so that it will line up with Excel on all but the first two months of 1900, however this necessitates theDayOfWeek
method because the original epoch, 1899-12-30 (or the fictive 1900-01-00) was chosen such that the weekday simply was the mod-7 of the day number, but that won't work with 1899-12-30.
– Adám
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
Does every year have a 0th of January and 29th of February or is 1900 the only anomaly?
– Shaggy
4 hours ago
1
1900 is the anomaly. Excel treats leap years correctly except for 1900 (which is not a leap year). But that was for compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3, where the bug originated.
– Rick Hitchcock
4 hours ago
@Shaggy Only 1900 is anomalous.
– Adám
4 hours ago
1
@RickHitchcock Apparently, the Lotus 1-2-3 devs did it to save on leap year code, such that the rule simply became every fourth year. With good reason too; 1900 was far in the past, and 2100 is, well, in a while.
– Adám
4 hours ago
1
@RickHitchcock It may very well be that the original Lotus 1-2-3 couldn't handle Y2K, and so Microsoft decided to mimic that one issue, but otherwise stay right. Btw, the legacy lives on: .NET's OADate has epoch 1899-12-30 so that it will line up with Excel on all but the first two months of 1900, however this necessitates theDayOfWeek
method because the original epoch, 1899-12-30 (or the fictive 1900-01-00) was chosen such that the weekday simply was the mod-7 of the day number, but that won't work with 1899-12-30.
– Adám
4 hours ago
1
1
Does every year have a 0th of January and 29th of February or is 1900 the only anomaly?
– Shaggy
4 hours ago
Does every year have a 0th of January and 29th of February or is 1900 the only anomaly?
– Shaggy
4 hours ago
1
1
1900 is the anomaly. Excel treats leap years correctly except for 1900 (which is not a leap year). But that was for compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3, where the bug originated.
– Rick Hitchcock
4 hours ago
1900 is the anomaly. Excel treats leap years correctly except for 1900 (which is not a leap year). But that was for compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3, where the bug originated.
– Rick Hitchcock
4 hours ago
@Shaggy Only 1900 is anomalous.
– Adám
4 hours ago
@Shaggy Only 1900 is anomalous.
– Adám
4 hours ago
1
1
@RickHitchcock Apparently, the Lotus 1-2-3 devs did it to save on leap year code, such that the rule simply became every fourth year. With good reason too; 1900 was far in the past, and 2100 is, well, in a while.
– Adám
4 hours ago
@RickHitchcock Apparently, the Lotus 1-2-3 devs did it to save on leap year code, such that the rule simply became every fourth year. With good reason too; 1900 was far in the past, and 2100 is, well, in a while.
– Adám
4 hours ago
1
1
@RickHitchcock It may very well be that the original Lotus 1-2-3 couldn't handle Y2K, and so Microsoft decided to mimic that one issue, but otherwise stay right. Btw, the legacy lives on: .NET's OADate has epoch 1899-12-30 so that it will line up with Excel on all but the first two months of 1900, however this necessitates the
DayOfWeek
method because the original epoch, 1899-12-30 (or the fictive 1900-01-00) was chosen such that the weekday simply was the mod-7 of the day number, but that won't work with 1899-12-30.– Adám
4 hours ago
@RickHitchcock It may very well be that the original Lotus 1-2-3 couldn't handle Y2K, and so Microsoft decided to mimic that one issue, but otherwise stay right. Btw, the legacy lives on: .NET's OADate has epoch 1899-12-30 so that it will line up with Excel on all but the first two months of 1900, however this necessitates the
DayOfWeek
method because the original epoch, 1899-12-30 (or the fictive 1900-01-00) was chosen such that the weekday simply was the mod-7 of the day number, but that won't work with 1899-12-30.– Adám
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Excel, 3(+7?)
=A1
with format
yyy/m/d
Pure port
The output format may of course vary according to your locale.
– Adám
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Python 2, 116 bytes
from datetime import*
n=input()
print('1900-0'+'12--0209'[n>9::2],date(1900,1,1)+timedelta(days=n+~(n>60)))[0<n!=60]
Try it online!
Note: I'm pretty sure this will turn out to be longer as a lambda, since the format of the result shouldn't vary.
– Erik the Outgolfer
4 hours ago
days=
is not required
– ngn
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
k (kdb+ 3.5), 55 54 51 50 bytes
{$(`1900.01.00`1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)0 60?x}
to test, paste this line in the q console:
k)-1@{$(`1900.01.00`1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)0 60?x}'0 1 2 59 60 61 100 1000 10000 100000;
the output should be
1900.01.00
1900.01.01
1900.01.02
1900.02.28
1900.02.29
1900.03.01
1900.04.09
1902.09.26
1927.05.18
2173.10.14
{
}
is a function with argument x
0 60?x
index of x
among 0 60
or 2 if not found
ˋ1900.01.00ˋ1900.02.29
a list of two symbols
,"d"$x-36526-x<60
append to it a date x
days after 1900.01.00, adjusted for excel's leap error
(ˋ1900.01.00ˋ1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)
@0 60?x
juxtaposition means indexing - the "@" in the middle is implicit
$
convert to string
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Excel, 3(+7?)
=A1
with format
yyy/m/d
Pure port
The output format may of course vary according to your locale.
– Adám
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Excel, 3(+7?)
=A1
with format
yyy/m/d
Pure port
The output format may of course vary according to your locale.
– Adám
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Excel, 3(+7?)
=A1
with format
yyy/m/d
Pure port
Excel, 3(+7?)
=A1
with format
yyy/m/d
Pure port
answered 4 hours ago
community wiki
l4m2
The output format may of course vary according to your locale.
– Adám
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The output format may of course vary according to your locale.
– Adám
4 hours ago
The output format may of course vary according to your locale.
– Adám
4 hours ago
The output format may of course vary according to your locale.
– Adám
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Python 2, 116 bytes
from datetime import*
n=input()
print('1900-0'+'12--0209'[n>9::2],date(1900,1,1)+timedelta(days=n+~(n>60)))[0<n!=60]
Try it online!
Note: I'm pretty sure this will turn out to be longer as a lambda, since the format of the result shouldn't vary.
– Erik the Outgolfer
4 hours ago
days=
is not required
– ngn
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Python 2, 116 bytes
from datetime import*
n=input()
print('1900-0'+'12--0209'[n>9::2],date(1900,1,1)+timedelta(days=n+~(n>60)))[0<n!=60]
Try it online!
Note: I'm pretty sure this will turn out to be longer as a lambda, since the format of the result shouldn't vary.
– Erik the Outgolfer
4 hours ago
days=
is not required
– ngn
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Python 2, 116 bytes
from datetime import*
n=input()
print('1900-0'+'12--0209'[n>9::2],date(1900,1,1)+timedelta(days=n+~(n>60)))[0<n!=60]
Try it online!
Python 2, 116 bytes
from datetime import*
n=input()
print('1900-0'+'12--0209'[n>9::2],date(1900,1,1)+timedelta(days=n+~(n>60)))[0<n!=60]
Try it online!
answered 4 hours ago
Erik the Outgolfer
30.7k429102
30.7k429102
Note: I'm pretty sure this will turn out to be longer as a lambda, since the format of the result shouldn't vary.
– Erik the Outgolfer
4 hours ago
days=
is not required
– ngn
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Note: I'm pretty sure this will turn out to be longer as a lambda, since the format of the result shouldn't vary.
– Erik the Outgolfer
4 hours ago
days=
is not required
– ngn
3 hours ago
Note: I'm pretty sure this will turn out to be longer as a lambda, since the format of the result shouldn't vary.
– Erik the Outgolfer
4 hours ago
Note: I'm pretty sure this will turn out to be longer as a lambda, since the format of the result shouldn't vary.
– Erik the Outgolfer
4 hours ago
days=
is not required– ngn
3 hours ago
days=
is not required– ngn
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
k (kdb+ 3.5), 55 54 51 50 bytes
{$(`1900.01.00`1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)0 60?x}
to test, paste this line in the q console:
k)-1@{$(`1900.01.00`1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)0 60?x}'0 1 2 59 60 61 100 1000 10000 100000;
the output should be
1900.01.00
1900.01.01
1900.01.02
1900.02.28
1900.02.29
1900.03.01
1900.04.09
1902.09.26
1927.05.18
2173.10.14
{
}
is a function with argument x
0 60?x
index of x
among 0 60
or 2 if not found
ˋ1900.01.00ˋ1900.02.29
a list of two symbols
,"d"$x-36526-x<60
append to it a date x
days after 1900.01.00, adjusted for excel's leap error
(ˋ1900.01.00ˋ1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)
@0 60?x
juxtaposition means indexing - the "@" in the middle is implicit
$
convert to string
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
k (kdb+ 3.5), 55 54 51 50 bytes
{$(`1900.01.00`1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)0 60?x}
to test, paste this line in the q console:
k)-1@{$(`1900.01.00`1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)0 60?x}'0 1 2 59 60 61 100 1000 10000 100000;
the output should be
1900.01.00
1900.01.01
1900.01.02
1900.02.28
1900.02.29
1900.03.01
1900.04.09
1902.09.26
1927.05.18
2173.10.14
{
}
is a function with argument x
0 60?x
index of x
among 0 60
or 2 if not found
ˋ1900.01.00ˋ1900.02.29
a list of two symbols
,"d"$x-36526-x<60
append to it a date x
days after 1900.01.00, adjusted for excel's leap error
(ˋ1900.01.00ˋ1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)
@0 60?x
juxtaposition means indexing - the "@" in the middle is implicit
$
convert to string
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
k (kdb+ 3.5), 55 54 51 50 bytes
{$(`1900.01.00`1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)0 60?x}
to test, paste this line in the q console:
k)-1@{$(`1900.01.00`1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)0 60?x}'0 1 2 59 60 61 100 1000 10000 100000;
the output should be
1900.01.00
1900.01.01
1900.01.02
1900.02.28
1900.02.29
1900.03.01
1900.04.09
1902.09.26
1927.05.18
2173.10.14
{
}
is a function with argument x
0 60?x
index of x
among 0 60
or 2 if not found
ˋ1900.01.00ˋ1900.02.29
a list of two symbols
,"d"$x-36526-x<60
append to it a date x
days after 1900.01.00, adjusted for excel's leap error
(ˋ1900.01.00ˋ1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)
@0 60?x
juxtaposition means indexing - the "@" in the middle is implicit
$
convert to string
k (kdb+ 3.5), 55 54 51 50 bytes
{$(`1900.01.00`1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)0 60?x}
to test, paste this line in the q console:
k)-1@{$(`1900.01.00`1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)0 60?x}'0 1 2 59 60 61 100 1000 10000 100000;
the output should be
1900.01.00
1900.01.01
1900.01.02
1900.02.28
1900.02.29
1900.03.01
1900.04.09
1902.09.26
1927.05.18
2173.10.14
{
}
is a function with argument x
0 60?x
index of x
among 0 60
or 2 if not found
ˋ1900.01.00ˋ1900.02.29
a list of two symbols
,"d"$x-36526-x<60
append to it a date x
days after 1900.01.00, adjusted for excel's leap error
(ˋ1900.01.00ˋ1900.02.29,"d"$x-36526-x<60)
@0 60?x
juxtaposition means indexing - the "@" in the middle is implicit
$
convert to string
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
ngn
6,45312459
6,45312459
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodegolf.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f176647%2fconvert-an-excel-date-code-to-a-date%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Does every year have a 0th of January and 29th of February or is 1900 the only anomaly?
– Shaggy
4 hours ago
1
1900 is the anomaly. Excel treats leap years correctly except for 1900 (which is not a leap year). But that was for compatibility with Lotus 1-2-3, where the bug originated.
– Rick Hitchcock
4 hours ago
@Shaggy Only 1900 is anomalous.
– Adám
4 hours ago
1
@RickHitchcock Apparently, the Lotus 1-2-3 devs did it to save on leap year code, such that the rule simply became every fourth year. With good reason too; 1900 was far in the past, and 2100 is, well, in a while.
– Adám
4 hours ago
1
@RickHitchcock It may very well be that the original Lotus 1-2-3 couldn't handle Y2K, and so Microsoft decided to mimic that one issue, but otherwise stay right. Btw, the legacy lives on: .NET's OADate has epoch 1899-12-30 so that it will line up with Excel on all but the first two months of 1900, however this necessitates the
DayOfWeek
method because the original epoch, 1899-12-30 (or the fictive 1900-01-00) was chosen such that the weekday simply was the mod-7 of the day number, but that won't work with 1899-12-30.– Adám
4 hours ago