Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 02:31:14 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org> To: ac199@hwcn.org Cc: grog@FreeBSD.ORG, Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org>, dk+@ua.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: date(1) Message-ID: <199708010131.CAA21758@awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jul 1997 01:32:59 EDT." <Pine.BSF.3.96.970730012416.202A-100000@x22>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 grog@FreeBSD.ORG wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> [yy[mm[dd[hh]]]]mm[.ss]]
>
> At risk of missing the obvious, why can't the above simply be
> extended to
>
> [cc[yy[mm[dd[hh]]]]]mm[.ss]]
Yep. As I suggested.
> ? This format strikes me as being right since any usually, if the
> date is off by a large amount (eg. centuries), the year, month, day,
> hour, and minute will also be off. However, the date being off by a
> minute or two, while the hour, day, month, year, and century are
> correct is not unusual.
>
> This seems to avoid the below monstrosities.
>
> > >> [[[cc]yy[mm[dd[hh]]]]mm[.ss]]
> > >>> cc[yy[mm[dd[hh]]]]]mm[.ss]]
>
> The first is hopelessly ambigious and the 2nd is hopelessly
> annoying.
The first is just wrong, and the second is a mis-quote. I originally
said:
> More like:
>
> [[cc[yy[mm[dd[hh]]]]]mm[.ss]]
>
> (you can't have the century without the year).
>
> --
> tIM...HOEk
> OPTIMIZATION: the process of using many one-letter variables names
> hoping that the resultant code will run faster.
>
--
Brian <brian@awfulhak.org>, <brian@freebsd.org>
<http://www.awfulhak.org>;
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708010131.CAA21758>