Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:23:20 +0300 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Josef El-Rayes <josef@FreeBSD.org> Cc: standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: replacing "%+" with "%c %Z" Message-ID: <20041228032319.GA46570@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20041227224356.GF25424@daemon.li> References: <20041227213356.GA25737@daemon.li> <20041227214450.GA40679@nagual.pp.ru> <20041227215101.GE25424@daemon.li> <20041227215256.GA40890@nagual.pp.ru> <20041227224356.GF25424@daemon.li>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 10:43:56PM +0000, Josef El-Rayes wrote: > Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>: > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 09:51:01PM +0000, Josef El-Rayes wrote: > > > arent %+ and %c %Z in the same way locale-dependent? > >=20 > > Not the same way. > >=20 > > > whats the difference?=20 > >=20 > > See manpage and examine our timedef locales collection. >=20 > i wonder if this subtle format difference justifies > living with a non-standard extension. In general they can be non-subtle too, this is just for example. You can't= =20 assume anything about %+. Why not %Z %c? Or even %Z in the middle, like in= =20 traditional 'date'? The second question, why %+ is ever needed, is=20 different subject, see OSes implementing it and its common usage needs. --=20 http://ache.pp.ru/ --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBQdDRp+JgpPLZnQjrAQEn4wQAkInyp//ghphPDAAYCDhCPqsC+JY7K4hj eH6hmk+z5s4O7l+wkzsdaIzEwiUVquSXj1Fmh2+3HIUS86SS49uz2KzShp/z3gic SBqC6DXDtWERXNLDTeBFAYm+8dK+J9P7pJVe3pCfxUbNx8OzGEsByUtKRkKw5Ifs t4B1X0RgNfo= =lATE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041228032319.GA46570>