On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 08:08:17PM -0500, Matthew Simon Cavalletto wrote: > > Does it invite others to add their own modules? Pushing the main > implementation down a level might seem like a meaningless detail, but > my hope is that it helps to signal to other module authors that they're > not going to be second-class citizens.
What I would like to see is what the benefit for the various modules and authors is to adhere to this new API/Time::Piece object. From what I've seen so far, it looks like something heavily Gregorian biased, with lots of methods. I'm the author of Date::Maya, which just do two things, translate from Julian days to Mayan dates, and from Mayan dates to Julian days. As the discussion goes about the API/Time::Piece object, I just wonder why I should bother. Gregorian years, month or weeks just don't make any sense. And if you want to do something like 'find the date 100 days later', you just translate the date to julian days, add 100, and translate it back. I'm not against a common API/object, but only if both the API and object are small and simple. Things like (Gregorian) years, months and date, and its handling of it, belong, IMO, in a subclass, and not the base class. Abigail
