<quote from="Antonios Christofides" on="Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:23:56AM +0200" mark="|"> | Abigail wrote: | > I strongly disagree that Time::Piece is simple and powerful enough | > [for reasons that appear to have to do with the implementation.] | | The truth is I only looked at the manual. It is the interface I find | nice, I have no opinion on the implementation. It is the interface that | I find simple, powerful and extensible. If the implementation isn't | good enough, you can always change it and leave the interface as it is. | | But I did not make my point clear enough: my point is not so much that | Time::Piece should be standardized, but, rather, that the effort should | be concentrated on standardizing a module. (And, of course, one can | naturally expect lots of disagreement on technical details during this | effort.) </quote>
I've also found Time::Piece a bit too featureless, that's why I created Class::Date. It is just an OO wrapper for the POSIX date and time calculation routines, but with a new, friendly interface. I think a date module (which is not speed-centric) does not need to be more than this. I got good feedbacks about this module, users have found it useful. I think the quality of the interface is good and the implementation also straightforward. The Perl 5 Enterprise Environment project (p5ee.perl.org) has made a comparison on date modules. They compared Time::Piece, Class::Date and several other non-OO modules also. You could check this on the following URL: http://www.officevision.com/pub/p5ee/software/htdocs/P5EEx/Blue/datetime.html I would be happy if the "standardization team" would find Class::Date useful, but I don't think we need a standard module. We need good modules, which are _co-operating_ to achieve the actual project's goals. Regards, Szab�, Bal�zs (dLux) -- :wq
