[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Rolsky) wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Peter J. Acklam wrote: > >> Is the DateTime-modules only for calendaring purposes? I thought >> this was a base on which people could build modules for doing all >> sorts of time calculations. Hm. Perhaps I misunderstood. > > I'd like it to work for lots of stuff, but if _all_ you need is > attoseconds, then it's not going to be a very good fit. Do > physicists need to record dates and times with attosecond > precision, or do they need to record a date and time, and > seperately record experiment data which includes attoseconds? > See the difference?
Yes, I see the difference between relative and absolute time. I doubt they record absolute time with attosecond precision, but I don't know. However, for the DateTime module(s) be able to work with high resolution relative time, milliseconds or whatever, it must be able represent these time periods one way or another, right? I just want to be sure that this is taken care of. > Making it work for calendaring purposes is definitely the first > goal. If it can also be used for other things that is good. > But what other things are you thinking of? My worry, perhaps unjustified, but still my worry (:-)), is that this project is going to create a problem similar to the Y2K problem: People did not think far enough ahead and did not represent time with sufficient range -- and in this case granularity, too. I don't have any examples except 1) astronomers work with dates before year 1, and 2) countless people have complained about the 1 second resolution in UNIX time representation being much too coarse. Peter -- #!/local/bin/perl5 -wp -*- mode: cperl; coding: iso-8859-1; -*- # matlab comment stripper (strips comments from Matlab m-files) s/^((?:(?:[])}\w.]'+|[^'%])+|'[^'\n]*(?:''[^'\n]*)*')*).*/$1/x;
