> On 13 May 2025, at 11:00 PM, David E. Wheeler <da...@justatheory.com> wrote: > > On May 13, 2025, at 16:24, Florents Tselai <florents.tse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As Robert said—and I agree—renaming the existing _tz family would be more >> trouble than it’s worth, given the need for deprecations, migration paths, >> etc. If we were designing this today, suffixes like _stable or _volatile >> might have been more appropriate, but at this point, we’re better off >> staying consistent with the _tz family. > > I get the pragmatism, and don’t want to over-bike-shed, but what a wart to > live with. [I just went back and re-read Robert’s post, and didn’t realize he > used exactly the same expression!] Would it really be too effortful to create > _stable or _volatile functions and leave the _tz functions as a sort of > legacy?
Thinking about it a second time, you may be right. Especially if more people are interested in adding even more methods there. Here’s a patch just merging the latest changes in the jsonpath tooling; no substantial changes to v1; mainly for CFbot to pick this up.
v2-0001-Rebase-latest-changes.-jsonpath_scan.l-white-spac.patch
Description: Binary data
