Front page | perl.datetime |
Postings from January 2003
From: "Ken Williams" <ken@mathforum.org> > > On Thu 2003/01/09 16:04:04 CST, Dave Rolsky <autarch@urth.org> writes: > > > >> -- Provides simple date parsing ala Time::Piece->strptime. Maybe > >> throw in > >> the functionality provided by Date::Parse? Maybe make this a separate > >> module. Doesn't matter too much. > > > > Simple parsing needs to be in the base module (yyyymmdd at least). I > > would > > prefer to see complex parsing put in a different module that could be > > included (or not) based on if your application needs any complex > > parsing. > > Yeah, the base module should accept several different non-ambiguous > "canonical" formats such as the ones used in RFCs, and things like > YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS. A supplementary module could handle fuzzy stuff > like "3 days ago" and "a month from tomorrow". Parsing should not be in a base date time class though - it has no place there. It should *return* a base date time object, but putting generators in the same class doesn't make sense to me. I suppose you could look at them as constructors, but I'd disagree with that. A constructor should instantiate an object via the simplest means possible. Everything else should go in an external class (and if you like that class can inject methods into the base class, but no date parsing whatsoever should go into the base class IMHO). Matt.Thread Previous | Thread Next