On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Martijn van Beers wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 12:27:30AM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Martijn van Beers wrote: > > > > > gives: > > > [19700329T020000..19701025T030000], > > > [19710328T020000..19711031T030000], > > > [19720326T020000..19721030T030000] > > > > > > The format of the time strings and the recurrence rules are defined > > > in the iCalendar rfc (2445). This was used because the primary use > > > of Date::Set was going to be Net::ICal. (not that I'm aware of > > > any other syntaxes to specify recurrences in) > > > > Wouldn't it be better to specify them in something a little more primitive > > (numbers, not a string)? > > I'm not sure what you mean by 'them'. If it is recurrence rules, then > no, I don't think you want to specify them as something more primitive. > the strings are nicely compact, and you aren't going to make it more > clear by making people generate big data structures by hand instead.
Sorry, we're confusing API vs. implementation again. I was suggesting that implementation shouldn't use ICal strings. But for the API, I for one think data structures are much easier to deal with than arbitrar string formats. Let's delay this discussion until we have a general discussion going on the DateTime::Set API though. -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
