On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 03:42:57PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
> I've made a start on this.  See ext/Date in pugs.  I don't think that
> your views are necessarily contrary.

That's what I'm looking for.  Thank you!

> 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 ;)).

So, if we continue following this API, Perl6 core will contain time(),
but no localtime() nor gmtime().  The Date module will provide human
readable date and time strings, and basic date math.

> 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.

So further date manipulation could be provided by other date modules,
hopefully within the same framework.

Sounds good to me.


Reply via email to