Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 04:27:47 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: brian@awfulhak.org (Brian Somers), hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: date(1) Message-ID: <199708010327.EAA05954@awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 Aug 1997 12:30:29 %2B0930." <199708010300.MAA08376@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> + [[cc[yy[mm[dd[hh]]]]]mm[.ss]]
> +
> + this syntax can be expanded to:
> +
> + [[cc[yy[mm[dd]]]]mm[.ss]]
> + [[cc[yy[mm]]]mm[.ss]]
> + [[cc[yy]]mm[.ss]]
> + [[cc]mm[.ss]]
> + [mm[.ss]]
> + [[cc[yy[mm[dd]]]]mm]
> + [[cc[yy[mm]]]mm]
> + [[cc[yy]]mm]
> + [[cc]mm]
> +
> + So 'date 2001' must mean "set the date to century 20, year undefined,
> + month, day, and hour undefined, minute 1.
> +
> + Most newcomers to UNIX hate date(1) because the date entry format is
> + already too cryptic. This would just make it worse. There are some
> + other alternatives for date entry--tar uses one, for example, though
> + it may be GNU code. Why not base an implementation on one of those?
>
> In other words, yes, my mail macros screwed up the syntax, but they
> didn't change much.
>
> > I'm sure we can all agree that this means the above usage (with the
> > two wandering brackets included) is correct ?
>
> No, it's still wrong.
Oops, let me just delete that "no no no" mail that I nearly sent
*blush*. Of course it should be:
[[[[[cc]yy]mm]dd]HH]MM[.SS]
As we strip the brackets from the outside in, we get the right answer
:-) Thanks.
> Greg
--
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?199708010327.EAA05954>