On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: > > On the one hand, I agree. "HiRes" is bad, and "hires" is a bit worse. > > OTOH, _so_ many people are already familiar with Time::HiRes, that having > > our own variation on it may be confusing to as many people, or more, as > > "hires" is. > > So are we back to DT::HiRes? Or just rename the constructor? I would > like to see this functionality make it into the next release.
I guess sticking it in a separate module DateTime::HiRes works, since that way we don't force people to load Time::HiRes if they don't need it. -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
