On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 2. I think we should have a DateTime::Format base class > > > > I'm not so sure about this, to be honest. > > Okay. I've suggested it twice. It seems like really straightforward OO > methodology. Not sure why its met with such trepidation. But I'll stop > suggesting it.
I'm not violently against it, I just don't see the need _yet_. Let's wait til there's a few more format modules and look at this again. > > datetime formatting methods, and several parsing methods, so you might > > have "parse_foo_datetime" and "parse_bar_datetime". > > This is no more, or less true, when the methods are in Builder.pm, yes? Sure. My point was that if the different classes all have different method names, then what is the purpose of a base class? The base class is pretty much going to be an empty virtual class, right? If so, then it's only purpose is to document a common API. > > Maybe. I think Builder will grow as we find similarities between existing > > modules. > > So you agree that Builder will grow and evolve, but you don't want to > mention that fact anywhere? I think I misread your comment. Yes, Builder should mention that formatting and parsing is not restricted to datetimes, even if Builder currently is. -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
