On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Zack Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 2013-Feb-27 is far more easier to parse by a human than 2013-2-27 > > "easier to parse by human" is subjective - it isn't for me. Sorry for generalizing; yes, it need not be applicable to all. To be clear, what I am suggesting is, in the input file there can be two ways to enter a date. YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-month-DD (where "month" is defined in a directive) The latter is significantly more readable to me, and is consistent with the output format of ledger. > An alphanumeric sort will also not work properly with this I am not sure what "sort" you are referring to. The dates would still be treated as dates; it is just a change in the parser that I am proposing. When "2013-Feb-27" is parsed, it can be recorded as "2013-2-27" in the AST. -- *Harshad RJ* <http://lavadip.com> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ledger" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
