Re: Slides from YAPC presentation

2003-06-30 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
Are you in town yet? I've instigated a pdx.pm GT either Tues. or Weds. of this week. -J --

OSCON

2003-06-30 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
Dave, I just noticed your on MJD's lightning talk list for OSCON. What are you going to cram into 5 minutes? :) -J --

Re: [Module-build-general] RE: yet another DT::F::ISO8601 with yet another version (fwd)

2003-06-30 Thread Andrew Savige
Joshua Hoblitt wrote: But it generates a makefile on win32 that calls Build so you can still use make, right? So the question is why does 'nmake' succeed and 'nmake test' fail? This has been fixed in latest CVS. Basically, it was generating a GNU makefile, not a lowest common denominator one.

Re: Slides from YAPC presentation

2003-06-30 Thread John Peacock
Joshua Hoblitt wrote: Are you in town yet? I've instigated a pdx.pm GT either Tues. or Weds. of this week. Nope. I'll be getting in Saturday night (and probably wiped out until Sunday morning). I'm open to suggestions of what to do on Sunday, though I won't be getting a car unless provoked.

Re: OSCON

2003-06-30 Thread Dave Rolsky
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: I just noticed your on MJD's lightning talk list for OSCON. What are you going to cram into 5 minutes? :) Um, I dunno. I figured I'd write it that day or something. I'm mostly planning on just telling people what the project is and why it's a good

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Dave Rolsky
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Ben Bennett wrote: The nits: 1) The following doesn't work because add_duration() doesn't return the object, but rather falls through and returns the number of nanoseconds in the final object: -- my $dur = DateTime::Duration-new(months = 3)-add(hours = -3);

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Flavio S. Glock
Dave Rolsky wrote: On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Ben Bennett wrote: The nits: 1) The following doesn't work because add_duration() doesn't return the object, but rather falls through and returns the number of nanoseconds in the final object: -- my $dur =

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Ben Bennett
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 12:20:43PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote: 2) Having a way to construct this directly would be nice being able to make a duration that you can not directly construct seems odd. Well, maybe. Right now the constructor is really simple, which is good. More

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Dave Rolsky
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Flavio S. Glock wrote: Well, maybe. Right now the constructor is really simple, which is good. More functionality is nice, but so is simplicity. use DateTime; my $dt = DateTime-now; my $dur = sub { $_[0]-add( months = 3 )-subtract( hours = 3 ) }; print

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Dave Rolsky
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Ben Bennett wrote: I am totally mystified. I read If any of the numbers are negative, the entire duration is negative. as indicating that the individual signs don't matter. I think the error is on DT::Duration line 52: $self-{minutes} = abs( ( $p{hours} * 60 ) +

Re: Slides from YAPC presentation

2003-06-30 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
I'm just starting to panic that I am not going to be able to survive with just a P233 notebook with a 56k modem when I am used to a 1.2GHz w/768k DSL. ;~) I've got a bunch of programming I want to accomplish next week and I don't want to be hampered by poor connectivity... I'm in the same

Re: Slides from YAPC presentation

2003-06-30 Thread Matt Sisk
Surely there's some coffee shops or net cafes around with wireless and/or jacks? These days it's generally gratis so long as you buy a coffee every now and then. (haven't been paying attention, so I'm not sure exactly which city we're talking about) Matt

ANNOUCE: DateTime::Format::DateManip

2003-06-30 Thread Ben Bennett
I needed to convert between Date::Manip and DateTime so I wrote a module to convert the date and duration formats (recurrences may follow if there is demand, there are some nasty wrinkles though). Get it from http://www.limey.net/~fiji/perl/ If people see no major problems with this module I

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread fglock
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 implement. Is it too confusing? - Flavio S.

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Bruce Van Allen
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

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Matt Sisk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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. I love that this does the right thing. However, I

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Dave Rolsky
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Matt Sisk wrote: So, yes, the implication is that: $dur = DT::Dur-new(days = 2, months = -1); would indeed behave differently than: $dur = DT::Dur-new(months = -1, days = 2); So long as the behavior (intrinsic to durations) is well documented I think it stands

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Matt Sisk
Documented or not, it'll never be intuitive, which makes me think it's a bad idea. This could be a feature of the problem space rather than implementation. :) I'd say it's safe to say 99% of non-temporal geeks underestimate the subtle complexity of the problem...intuitive ends up being

parse/format_recurrence in DT::F::ICal

2003-06-30 Thread Matt Sisk
Is there some reason the parse/format routines for recurrences in DT::F::ICal are not documented in the POD? Is there anyhing wrong with these methods or is the lack of documentation an oversight? Thanks, Matt

Re: parse/format_recurrence in DT::F::ICal

2003-06-30 Thread fglock
They are documented in CVS version. Is there some reason the parse/format routines for recurrences in DT::F::ICal are not documented in the POD? Is there anyhing wrong with these methods or is the lack of documentation an oversight?

DT::F::ICal format_recurrence

2003-06-30 Thread Matt Sisk
Found the parse_recurrence docs in the CVS, thanks. However, there's a good reason the format_recurrence method is not documented...it doesn't exist. Are there plans to implement this? Thanks, Matt

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Matt Sisk wrote: Documented or not, it'll never be intuitive, which makes me think it's a bad idea. This could be a feature of the problem space rather than implementation. :) I'd say it's safe to say 99% of non-temporal geeks underestimate the subtle complexity of

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
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 implement. Is it too confusing? This

Re: DT::F::ICal format_recurrence

2003-06-30 Thread Dave Rolsky
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Matt Sisk wrote: Found the parse_recurrence docs in the CVS, thanks. However, there's a good reason the format_recurrence method is not documented...it doesn't exist. Are there plans to implement this? This is hard, since recurrences are implemented as

Re: DateTime::Duration nits...

2003-06-30 Thread Dave Rolsky
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Joshua Hoblitt 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

Re: DT::F::ICal format_recurrence

2003-06-30 Thread Matt Sisk
Quoting Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is hard, since recurrences are implemented as closures/coderefs, and there's no way to look at one and figure out what it represents. Is it feasible, during construction, to leave enough bread crumbs around to reverse the process? (I would imagine