Rob Kinyon wrote:
What I'm trying to get at isn't that DateTime's API should be preserved. I'm saying that the concept of DateTime should be ported. Core or not core - it doesn't matter. When use'd (or installed), it should override now() (and anyone else we can think of) to return an object that DWIMs, plus provides the interface you've outlined below.
I've made a start on this. See ext/Date in pugs. I don't think that your views are necessarily contrary. The biggest reason I didn't use DateTime was that I found it awkward for the common case; most of the time I just want to stuff in an ISO8601 date. I also don't like implicit normalisation to seconds underneath the hood when I'm doing basic date calculations, and the way that the "DateTime" base class is inherantly based on the Gregorian calendar. The "Date" and "Duration" roles are extremely minimal; see http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/ext/Date/lib/Date.pm http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/ext/Date/lib/Duration.pm The major API is described at: http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/ext/Date/lib/Date/Gregorian.pod This module is supposed to be somewhere between DateTime and Class::Date, with built-in ISO-8601 support (as it's the standard ;)). With a bit of luck, all Date implementation can share this `Date' Role, and Gregorian calendar modules share the `Date::Gregorian' Role, so that the multitude of implementations that crop up will be mutually exchangable, and the simple case fast, efficient and useful. Sam.
