From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 10 18:20:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA28761 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (awfulhak.demon.co.uk [158.152.17.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA28707 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from awfulhak.org (dev.lan.awfulhak.org [10.0.1.5]) by awfulhak.demon.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA03811; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 01:32:44 +0100 (BST) Received: from dev.lan.awfulhak.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by awfulhak.org (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id BAA05222; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 01:32:37 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199708110032.BAA05222@awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: hoek@hwcn.org cc: Brian Somers , Greg Lehey , FreeBSD Hackers Subject: Re: date(1) In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 10 Aug 1997 19:55:21 EDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 01:32:37 +0100 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Brian Somers wrote: > > > > Of course, in the interest of script-portability, we should not > > > extend date(1) at all. Anyone trying to enter the century should > > > get an error. This is the whole purpose of Posix, to increase > > > portability. By creating extensions to it, we defeat the whole > > > purpose just for the sake of creating a better operating system. > > > > Well, I've done the other changes (they only take effect if you use > > the new flags). Is the general concensus that we should leave out > > the century ? It's no loss if we leave it out as allowable dates > > Well, my comment was really more a (fairly realistic) parady of > the "logic" that had just been used to shoot down a valid > extension to sleep(1) (had the submitter phrased himself > differently, I doubt anyone would have reacted as they did). > > There really is no value in _not_ adding the century (other than > saving a little coding time, and the [assorted negative > adjectives deleted] argument about "portability), even if there > is no immediate value in adding it either. > > Actually, I thought the concensus went the other way. Oh. I didn't see any arguments after yours. I'd be happy to leave it as it is now in -current. If anyone *really* wants it, post a followup and I'll add it. > -- > Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! > tIM...HOEk > -- Brian , Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....