On 3/21/06 Garrett, Philip (MAN-Corporate) wrote:
So is cloning really the only way to do this?
Dave Rolsky answered:
I'm afraid so. But that's what the clone api is for. I'm not sure
why you're averse to it, it's actually implemented in a way that
should be quite fast.
My aversion is more
On 2005-01-20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DT::Set count() currently returns undef on error, and 0 for empty
sets.
Should it return zero-but-true (0e0) for empty sets?
I use 0e0 (or '0 but true') in lots of cases where an empty set is a
valid return value, where zero is a valid index, and where zero
On 8/31/04 Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Rick Measham wrote:
At 9:33 am -0700 2004-08-30, Jonathan Leffler wrote:
It looks like the test is trying to use February 30th. My
impression is that the problem is in the test, not the module being
tested.
Dave, this looks more like an
On 7/2/04 Rick Measham wrote:
DateTime-now() returns a UTC time unless given a time zone.
On the other hand, DateTime-new() returns the local time zone unless
otherwise instructed.
Dave, can you enlighten me as to why this is the case? Shouldn't all
constructors that don't have a time_zone
On 6/11/04 Rick Measham wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about a DateTime::Span-midpoint method?
On 11 Jun 2004, at 6:55 AM, Dave Rolsky replied:
Let's wait and see if others ask for it. For now, let's just
add those recipes to the faq.
I'm not sure of the best
On 2003-10-03 Dave Rolsky wrote:
I see us needing a couple things: - Recording the fact that certain
days are special non-work days. This includes both public holidays,
company holidays, one shot things like fumigating the building, etc.
We not only want to record when these are, but their
On 9/20/03 Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
I'm not sure about the count in a year, but I frequently need to
determine how many of a given day of the week fall in a given month
of the year, or, more precisely, given that today is Saturday,
September 20, I need to figure out whether today is the first,
On Thursday, July 17, 2003 Flavio S. Glock wrote:
Bruce Van Allen wrote:
UTC is widely used in scientific and technical contexts,
and is increasingly accepted as the standard time scale for
civic and business uses.
s/civic/civil/ ?
++
- Flavio S. Glock
Yes, s/civic/civil/ .
Thanks
On Monday, July 14, 2003 John Peacock wrote:
John Siracusa wrote:
Great, but the $64K question is: do we then get parse() and parser() methods
in DateTime, which default to use DT::F::Simple? :)
A while ago, when this discussion last reared its [ugly] head, I suggested that
the base class
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not:
$dur1 = new DT::Dur( days = 2 );
$dur2 = new DT::Dur( months = 1 );
$dur3 = $dur1 - $dur2;
$dur3-add( days = 3 );
If you add $dur3 to a date, it would add 2 days and
subtract a month, then add 3 days again.
This is not too difficult to
On Sunday, June 22, 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll try to rephrase this, because it
would be good to have it in the FAQ.
If somebody can explain it better, or
more correctly, please help me!
How's this:
What time scale does DateTime follow?
What's up with UTC, GMT, TAI, and UT1?
The
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Van Allen wrote:
How's this:
...
Before UTC, other time scales were in use,
including:
Maybe:
There are other time scales, such as:
because some are still in use (?)
Good point. I was trying to convey something about the progression
On Sunday, June 22, 2003 Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Bruce Van Allen wrote:
The point of DT::Format::XXX is parsing and formatting:
- to return a DT object if given an XXX-formatted date/time string; and
- to return an XXX-formatted string from a DT object.
Well, the formats can
On Sunday, June 22, 2003 Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Bruce Van Allen schreef:
From a string in the form MM, the DT::F::ISO8601 parser
should return a DT object identical to the DateTime object
instantiated from
$dt = DateTime-new(
year = 2003,
month = 6
On Sunday, June 22, 2003 Jesse Shy wrote:
OK, I am coding up the port from Date::Calc::Fiscal right now.
Yay. The DT project advances into a new continent of usefulness!
It will have only 2 methods right now, day_fiscal_year - if Mar 1 is
fiscal start, then Mar 1 is day 1 not 59;
Hi All:
[This was already written when Dave posted his latest comment:
While I know that DateTime::Business stuff will eventually probably get
really complicated, I think starting off with one simple implementation
just to get the ball rolling is a good idea. If people need something
different,
On Thursday, June 19, 2003 Jerry Wilcox wrote:
At 4:25 PM +0200 6/19/03, Peter J. Acklam wrote:
Anyway, I see your point, but I don't agree. There is only need
for an agreement when ambiguous formats are used, which is a good
thing since ambiguous date formats are, as everyone here knows, a
big
Perhaps I'm not following closely enough, but this thread is confusing
me.
On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 02:51 PM, Ben Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:52:46AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
How would an add method that returns silently if an alias is already
defined tell if an alias
On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 07:08 PM, Ben Bennett wrote:
I added a section on nanoseconds:
The raw POD is below.
=head3 How small an increment of time can I represent?
ADateTime can represent nanoseconds. You can create obects with
=for example begin
# The ns part is 0.00230 below
On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 01:38 PM, Ben Bennett wrote:
Very interesting post.
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 01:32:14PM -0700, Brad Hughes wrote:
Ben Bennett wrote:
Okay so what should a business date module be able to do?
What is a business day?
A quick glance at our internal date modules reveals
On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 04:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Van Allen wrote:
1. This is one reason some us have argued for the capability of
caching
recurrence sets (which Flavio implemented!).
I'm not done yet - but I've got it started.
Sorry, what I meant was -- Flavio has agreed
On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 09:39 PM, Rick Measham wrote:
Looking through the FAQ (thanks Ben!), the question about comparisons
is
raised. Clearly DT-now is only == to DT-today for one nanosecond.
Maybe we should add a routine such as the following to the core?
sub same {
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 04:26 PM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
my $dt = DateTime-new( year = 2003, month = 4, day = 5,
hour = 2, time_zone = 'America/Chicago',
$dt-add( days = 1 );
then the code will throw an exception, because there is no local 2:00
AM
on 2003-04-06 in
On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 07:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say that the same applies .. add one month:
01:00 26 January 2003 + 1 month = 01:00 26 February 2003
01:00 26 February 2003 + 2 months = 01:00 26 April 2003
On Friday, February 28, 2003, at 10:56 PM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
Hmm,
On Sunday, February 2, 2003, at 02:42 PM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Dave Rolsky wrote:
If I have a datetime object with a floating time zone and then I set
the
time zone to some non-floating zone, I shouldn't change the local
time,
right?
And how about non-floating =
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 05:19 PM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
What should happen when someone does this:
my $dt = ...;
$dt-set( time_zone = 'America/Denver' );
and the new time zone is different from the old?
There's two ways to do this. One is to keep the UTC time the same,
which
On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 02:24 PM, Antonios Christofides wrote:
Dave Rolsky wrote:
Monday!
How exciting. I figured I might as well just pick something, and so I
picked Monday. There were a lot of excellent candidates, and Friday's
performance was excellent, but overall Monday best
On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 09:52 PM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
Can we simply declare 0-based as the standard for day of week and day
of
year, and 1-based for day of month, month of year, and week of year.
FWIW, that's what Date::ICal already had implemented, I believe.
Alternately, how about
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 04:35 PM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Chris Josephes wrote:
Why not just a DateTime object, like we already have a CGI object?
I suppose that's possible too. I think the one thing the
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cabal dislikes more than a new top-level
At 7:09 PM -0400 8/20/01, Rich Bowen wrote:
OK, just making sure that I had the support of a few folks. Remember,
I'm the one that proposed the change in the first place, so I still
think it's a good idea. Mostly, I just have not had time.
So it seems, then, that the sentiment is still for this
30 matches
Mail list logo
