+1 On Sep 27, 2011, at 11:35 PM, Chris Cunningham wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Pat Maddox <[email protected]> wrote: >> Might be sloppy writing because that last sentence seems to contradict the >> first one. At any rate, I wouldn't expect that to be valid. What is 24:00:01 >> ? > > TimeStamp fromString: '2011-09-27 24:00:01' -> '27 September 2011 12:00:01 > am' > > As for contradictions (if it was from my message), this behavior is > not expected by me, but it may be expected by the rest of the > community (which is what I was asking about). It sounds like it > isn't, though. > > I think the method is too permissive - it probably should have > rejected my input as bad. > > The code path delegates the time portion off to Time, which delegates > it off to Duration (with no bounds checks), then asks for the seconds > and nanos back from Duration via #ticks, which hides the fact that a > date boundary has been exceeded: > > days := self days. > ^ Array > with: days > with: seconds - (days * SecondsInDay) > with: nanos > (the seconds - (days * SecondsInDay) part). > > -Chris >
