Being consistent is of course better (note however that #month does not exist today, probably because it is hard to define). The double-dispatching is also good. But I would have to study the actual code in detail to have a better opinion.
On 19 Sep 2014, at 14:48, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, so I read Chris’ e-mail and I’m intrigued. > > Sven, you’re still right about financial months being 30 days for instance > but the thing is that the current implementation seems broken (or inconsisten > at least) and doesn’t honor that case either. *Not* making the change will > not help us either… > > So I’d say: let’s do it. If somebody objects (or proposes a change) then we > can handle that but at least we can claim that we try to give the users what > we preach, like writing natural language like code (e.g. “x + 1 month” which > is currently not possible). > > That’s my view at least. Also: we’re changing so much stuff in Pharo anyway > all the time, I don’t think this would hurt. > > Cheers, > Max > > > On 19.09.2014, at 14:37, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Oops. Didn’t realize that thread was from Squeak dev. So there’s no Pharo >> implementation of that change for now anyway. >> >> On 19.09.2014, at 14:35, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 19.09.2014, at 14:16, Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Max Leske wrote >>>>> your change >>>> >>>> It's not mine. I just scanned the thread from Squeak Dev and was intrigued >>>> because I've run into this limitation (the tension between year/month/etc >>>> as >>>> a conceptual ideal, and those entities as a specific number of days in >>>> context) a bunch before >>> >>> Ok. Then I’ll look at it. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Cheers, >>>> Sean >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://forum.world.st/Interesting-Date-Time-Thread-on-Squeak-Dev-tp4778652p4778960.html >>>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at >>>> Nabble.com. >>>> >>> >> > >
