On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 09:57:11AM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2005, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: > >If I understand you correctly, your position is that user's will be > >confused by DST transitions screwing up additions but won't notice the > >same effect on subtractions? > > No, they'll notice, but the workarounds for subtractions are > well-documented.
So why is that better than making subtractions work 'as expected' and documenting the work arounds for addition? > Anyway, your position seemed to be that they won't notice for either, and > that both should be weird ;) My position is that you really need to put on your critical thinking hat and think about how *wrong* it is for additions and subtractions to have different behaviors. > The more I think about this the more I'm convinced that the idea of > datetime subtraction producing something other than seconds is a > convenient fiction. Similarly, date subtraction producing something other > than a count of days is full of potential bugs. The whole point of DT is that it is *correct*. We need to decide on what the correct behavior is regardless of how painful it is to implement on top of the Rata Die system. It seems to me the real question would should be answering is: is calendar math subject to DST transitions or not? -J --
pgpIFCtNBcCT9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
