On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, John Peacock wrote:
At the risk of sounding flippant, why not rename the existing DateTime
class to DateTime::Fat (or the less inflamatory DateTime::Base) and
put the proposed module in it's place as DateTime. If it is designed
well, everything should Just Work(TM) with the shim class, which
should always be faster than the existing class, even with the extra
dispatch to plump up the object when needed.
At first I thought this might be a good idea ..
Dave Rolsky wrote:
It has a pretty different API, in that it's new() constructor accepts
anything without validation.
I suppose it could check for extra args and call DateTime::Fat->new() if
needed.
I think that'd be a possibility, but it'd have to pass the DateTime.pm
test suite in that case.
We'd need to bring complete validation back in though. Otherwise your
object dies unexpectedly later on:
$dt = DateTime::Diet->new( year => 2004, month => 232 );
print $dt->year;
#2004
print $dt->month;
#232
print $dt->monthname;
# DIE: Illegal value passed to DateTime::new
This needs to be an *alternate* rather than standard way of creating
DateTime objects, and the documentation will basically just tell you
that you need to be very aware of the lack of immediate validation.
Cheers!
Rick Measham
