What were your thoughts on the constructor? I think people expect a
new, but are unspecified things 0 (like DateTime) or undefined?
Also, what happens when you compare dates (or is that simply not
defined?).
Now that I think about it, you will probably need contains,
intersects, etc. But I assume you already planned that.
For the name, my thoughts are:
DT::Partial
DT::Incomplete
DT::Reduced
Is it useful to have an optional base DT that can be used when an item
is undefined (to more easily allow Time only objects):
--
my $dtw = DateTime::Whatever->new
(hour => 10, minute => 5, second => 2);
my $dt = DateTime->new(year => 2003, month => 7, day => 18);
$dtw->set( base => $dt );
print $dtw->year; # 2003
--
If you do that it may also be useful to have a method fix() (or
get_datetime() or flatten() or something) that returns a DateTime
either using the current base datetime, a provided datetime, or now()
(perhaps today()). This would make it convenient as a the thing to
return from formats where there can be missing information:
--
...
my $dt = DateTime::Format::Whatever->parse_datetime("12:30")
->flatten();
...
--
Or am I off my rocker?
-ben
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:54:55PM -0300, Flavio S. Glock wrote:
> Yes, this is better:
>
> $dtc1->set( month => 12 );
> $dtc1->set( month => undef );
>
> It can work without cloning, in order to be compatible with DateTime
> API.
>
> Name - how about DateTime::Whatever ? (I like it)
>
> $date = DateTime::Whatever->whatever( year => 2003 );
> # 2003-xx-xxTxx:xx:xx
>
> $date = DateTime::Whatever->new( year => 2003, day => undef )
> # 2003-xx-01-T00:00:00
>
> And this is one of the lines I snipped from the previous mail:
>
> $date->add( months => 12 )
> # 2004-xx-01-T00:00:00
>
> - Flavio S. Glock
>
>
> Ben Bennett wrote:
> >
> > I like the idea (this is the partial date & time thing right?) but I
> > am not too sure about the name... unless you start dealing with times
> > with real and imaginary parts :-) (Not that I have any suggestions for
> > a name yet).
> >
> > Regarding the interface would it be better to have:
> > --
> > my $dtc1 = DateTime::Complex->new_undef();
> > # I assume that DT::C->new() assumes 0 like DT->new()
> > # but that DT::C->new(year => 2003, day => undef )
> > # would give 2003-xx-01-T00:00:00?
> >
> > my $dtc2 = $dtc1->set( month => 12 );
> > my $christmas = $dtc2->set( day => 24 );
> > # Do these clone BTW or are $dtc1, $dtc2 and $christmas all refs
> > # to the same object (like DateTime does)?
> >
> > my $december = $christmas->set(day => undef);
> >
> > print $december->datetime;
> > # xxxx-12-xxTxx:xx:xx
> >
> > # See above question re cloning objects.
> > print $christmas->next( DateTime->now )->datetime;
> > # 2003-12-24Txx:xx:xx
> >
> > my $xmas_noon = $christmas->clone()->set( hour => 12 );
> >
> > print $christmas->contains( $xmas_noon );
> > # 1
> > --
> >
> > Regarding the cloning question, it is more like DateTime if they do
> > not get cloned autmomatically, but I am assuming your implementation
> > is based on your DT::Set which I think does clone automatically? I
> > would still vote for not cloning.
