In a message dated 2010.06.29 10:41 -0500, David Evans wrote:
... [apparently unrelated comments] ...
YYYY MM DD HH mm ss would be sortable !!
Yes. My question was not directed to what would be an ideal timestamp
format for the issues database, but rather Why does it use the format
"DDD MMM dd HH:mm:ss yyyy" (as in: "Tue Jun 29 23:29:30 2010")?
BTW, I know that is the basic ASCII/string format of standard C header
time.h - for reasons that seem to be lost in antiquity [I never met a
programmer who knew why] - but most people never see that idiosyncrasy.
My question is whether anyone knows what motivates its use for the
OpenOffice issues database.
John
Searching the issues database (on an unrelated problem) prompted a
question about the timestamp format:
- "DDD MMM dd HH:mm:ss yyyy"
(or "WkD MMM dd HH:mm:ss yyyy") -
that is,
Weekday (3 characters)
Month (3 characters)
Day-of-month (2 digits)
Time(Hours (24-hour, 2 digits): minutes (2 digits): seconds (2 digits))
Year (4 digits)
The lack of an overall ordering principle [corresponding to, say, the
most- to least-signficant principle of the "Time" component] often
forces me to think for an extra second in comparing timestamps. I
suspect I am not alone in that reaction, which prompts a question: Can
anyone explain the merit of that format? That is, what is its
functional motivation?
John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
