On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > I think it's a bad idea to extend the SRFI modules with new functions.
I agree with this. > Would it make sense to move functionality from SRFI-19 into > `racket/date' and then add the new functions there (and maybe change > the SRFI-19 implementation to re-export part of `racket/date')? > > At Tue, 3 May 2011 14:48:42 -0700, John Clements wrote: >> It was driving me crazy that srfi-19 had no way to convert seconds to times, >> especially given the fact that it appears that the internal representation >> used >> by srfi 19's time-utc was the result of (current-seconds).... so I added >> seconds->time-utc and time-utc->seconds, along with test cases. >> >> Unfortunately, I have no obvious way of documenting them. Let me know if >> there's a way I should be documenting this, or if it's a bad idea to extend >> the >> interface like this. >> >> John Clements > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev