Re: DateTime Namespace

[Matthew Simon Cavalletto]

On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 03:09  AM, Dave Rolsky wrote:

Except as you point out, this could confuse people who don't think of the calendar as the Gregorian calendar.

I agree, that's a drawback.

   DateTime::Hebrew::Passover   -- Was DateTime::Algorithm::Passover

Same here. Generally speaking, users will want to know when Passover falls in terms of the Gregorian calendar, not when it falls in terms of the Hebrew calendar.

True, but in these cases, our proposed conversion ability should make it trivial to switch back and forth... I would assume that we don't really care which calendar is used to make the calculation of when Passover occurs, as long as it can be compared against our Gregorian dates.

   DateTime::Epoch::Posix         -- Just a blessed time() value
   DateTime::Epoch::HiRes         -- Based on Time::HiRes
   DateTime::Epoch::TAI64         -- Based on Time::TAI64
   DateTime::Epoch::TAI64N        -- Based on Time::TAI64N

Epoch?  Huh?  This has nothing to do with epoch.  I think you mean
DateTime::Implementation or something like that.

What I was getting at was that those four implementations all happen to be implmented as "number of seconds since the start of the epoch", with different epoch start dates and levels of resolution; obviously other implementations would go elsewhere.

And the fact is that non-Gregorian calendars _are_ indeed "second-class" (as in, not in common worldwide usage). [...] Given that the one person who has implemented the most non-Gregorian calendar code, Rich Bowen, has not complained about Gregorian being given special treatment, I'm inclined to think this is a non-issue.

Fair enough; my gut instinct still favors the other arrangement, but it's not a life-or-death issue, and I have no interest in beating a dead horse.

-Simon