On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 21:26:57 GMT, Joe Wang wrote:
> Is the public API change, adding the isIsoLike() method, necessary?
Yes, I believe so. Without a means to tell whether the `TemporalAccessor`, such
as `LocalDate`, supports `IsoFields`, `IsoFields` would have to hard-code which
temporal
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 05:02:37 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Supporting `IsoFields` temporal fields in chronologies that are similar to
>> ISO chronology. Corresponding CSR has also been drafted.
>
> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 05:02:37 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Supporting `IsoFields` temporal fields in chronologies that are similar to
>> ISO chronology. Corresponding CSR has also been drafted.
>
> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last
On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 05:02:37 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> Supporting `IsoFields` temporal fields in chronologies that are similar to
>> ISO chronology. Corresponding CSR has also been drafted.
>
> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last
> Supporting `IsoFields` temporal fields in chronologies that are similar to
> ISO chronology. Corresponding CSR has also been drafted.
Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
copyright year fix
-
Changes:
-
