Steven Schveighoffer さんは書きました:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 10:42:56 -0400, SHOO <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't know if this will be enough, I wish I could tell you different.
Can you identify which functions you rewrote from the original proposal
to help focus Tango's attention?
http://ideone.com/TZ3Bi
- I specified my real name for "Author:" tag.
- Renamed Span to Duration.
- Added Duration.seconds, Duration.mseconds, Duration.useconds,
Duration.nseconds.
- Wrote "Note:" tags and comments for assertion of infringement-free.
- Rewrote EPOCH1970(This becomes the same quantity even if anyone
calculates, but just to be safe) by own hand newly
- Rewrote Date.isLeapYear by own hand newly (I wrote old isLeapYear by
own hand too. However, by a check, I confirmed that it was the same as
Tango's code.)
- Added some unittest codes
- Fixed iso8601 format, "yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss,sss" to
"yyyy-mm-ddThh:mm:ss,sss"
- Renamed Clocks to Ticks
- Added Ticks.seconds, Ticks.mseconds, Ticks.useconds, Ticks.nseconds.
- Clocks.span to Clocks.duration
Is there anyone listening from Tango who can check this against Tango
code to see if you still consider it to be infringing?
If this contribution is turned down, I give up std.time.
First, I hope this can be included, it looks like very solid code.
Second, if it cannot be included, I hope this does not dissuade you from
contributing to Phobos for other modules.
-Steve
Thanks. But don't worry.
My next challenge only begins even if it became the second situation.
