Talk:Cal (command)

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
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)

cal 9 1752
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)

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

cal sep 1725
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)

"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)

"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)


 * 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)