> The same as going in--M/d/yyyy. I can't reproduce that. You *are* substituting for m/d/yyyy an actual date, aren't you? Ummm, er, actually, no. Now that I did, it works fine. Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx
> The same as going in--M/d/yyyy. I can't reproduce that. You *are* substituting for m/d/yyyy an actual date, aren't you?
Ummm, er, actually, no. Now that I did, it works fine. Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx