Re: DateTime.pm on a Diet

Dave Rolsky wrote: It has a pretty different API, in that it's new() constructor accepts anything without validation. I suppose it could check for extra args and call DateTime::Fat-new() if needed. Can we split the existing new() into validation vs. object creation and share it between the

Re: DateTime.pm on a Diet

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Rick Measham wrote: Dave Rolsky wrote: It has a pretty different API, in that it's new() constructor accepts anything without validation. I suppose it could check for extra args and call DateTime::Fat-new() if needed. I think that'd be a possibility, but it'd have to

Arbitrary Date Parsing [Was: Re: Date::Parse (Time::Local?) choking on years between 1956-1938 and wrong below, on FC4/5.8.6]

Nicholas Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:20:50AM -0400, Ronald J Kimball wrote: Fortunately, you don't really need to convert your dates into time values, just so you can convert them back into dates. Some modules which may be more useful in this case include Date::Manip, Date::Calc,

Re: DateTime.pm on a Diet

On 7/7/05 12:12 AM, Rick Measham wrote: Dave Rolsky wrote: DateTime::Shim DateTime::Trampoline DateTime::ThinShim DateTime::Proxy DateTime::Diet - not awful but a little cute, methinks ;) Of the above, I still like DT:Diet. If you want something less cute/more serious how

Re: Arbitrary Date Parsing [Was: Re: Date::Parse (Time::Local?) choking on years between 1956-1938 and wrong below, on FC4/5.8.6]

Scott R. Godin wrote: I'm sort of surprised that there is no equivalent DateTime-using module that would mirror the capabilities of Date::Parse. Dave, Have you talked with Graham Barr at all about merging the arbitrary-date-parsing capabilities (of Date::Parse) into the DateTime family tree?