I think that :to<week> should stay as-is; it truncates to whatever the .week
method returns, and that's Monday-based. It would be too inconsistent for it
to do anything else.   Asking for the latest prior Sunday or any other
weekday is a useful function, but it doesn't really have anything to do with

I do think that an "unchecked" version of the setters is called for, one
that silently converts out-of-range values rather than throwing an
exception.  That's not an easy thing to implement outside of the library
without duplicating all the range-checking code.

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Carl Mäsak <cma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John (>):
> > Small feature request:
> >
> >  $dt.truncate( :to<week> );
> > is somewhat ambiguous, since some people start their week on Sunday,
> while
> > the module truncates to Monday.
> >
> > Would you consider a less ambiguous week truncation?
> >
> >  $dt.truncate( :to<sunday> );
> >  $dt.truncate( :to<monday> );
> d;
> I had the same thought, actually. I see both pros and cons.
> Among the pros: we'll cater to both the Sunday-starters and
> Monday-starters out there, just as you say.
> Among the cons: we lose the nice symmetry wherein :to<day> clears all
> values smaller than days, :to<year> clears all values smaller than
> years, etc. :to<monday> is still pretty straightforward, but it's a
> subtle category error.
> Apart from that, I wouldn't mind making the change. Though maybe we
> should take a step backward and just remove :to<week> altogether on
> the grounds that it doesn't belong, and is more confusing than useful.
> :)
> // Carl

Mark J. Reed <markjr...@gmail.com>

Reply via email to