Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:cal (command)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 14 years ago by 37.0.59.127 in topic 2012

Does the interesting output of cal, when called for september 1752, deserve mentioning? It is:

$ cal 9 1752
   September 1752
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
       1  2 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


The situation is related with leap year issue.

2012

[edit]

And what about ncal bug ?

$ ncal 9 1752
    Septembre 1752
Lu     4 11 18 25
Ma     5 12 19 26
Me     6 13 20 27
Je     7 14 21 28
Ve  1  8 15 22 29
Sa  2  9 16 23 30
Di  3 10 17 24

--37.0.59.127 (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply


cal 9 1752

[edit]

cal 9 1752 _does_ deserve mention as it has a very interesting story. it isn't related to leap-year at all, but rather has to do with a bug in the original cal code. Instead of fixing the copies of code that had been already distributed, representatives from AT&T convinced the vatican to remove those days from history.

lol, very funny! But I'd better put in a warning that this isn't true, just incase anybody should think that.... :o
Mathmo 10:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply


Julian

[edit]

While we are on 1752 shouldn't the Julian calendar be mentioned too? Mathmo 10:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

cal sep 1725

[edit]

The Article states, The Plan 9 from Bell Labs manual states: "Try cal sep 1752."

Does this need a correction? "cal 9 1752" would work, "cal sep 1752" does not. Mikepegg (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply


"cal sep 1752" and "cal 9 1752" work in the version of cal available now, but i do not have an older version to test it with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.171.143 (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply


"cal sep 1752" is not accepted by any of Fedora Core 12, Cygwin, or SunOS 5.9. The first two make the value judgement,

"cal: illegal month value: use 1-12"

while the third adopts a more scolding tone:

"cal: bad month
usage: cal [ [month] year ]"

Henry McGilton's rewording of Dennis Ritchie's error message? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply


Guys, Plan 9 is actually not Unix at all; it resembles Unix in some ways, but it's not Unix... AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply