Scott McMurray wrote: > On 02/07/07, Matias Capeletto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Do you guys think that the version of the packages are wrong to. >> >> We are using: >> boost_docs_07_07_01 >> >> I find >> boost_docs_2007_07_01 >> a little verbose. >> > >> On 7/2/07, Scott McMurray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I prefer 4-digit years, personally. > > Another option might be boost_docs_20070701, which is ISO-compliant, > though compliance there is really not important. It does keep the > full year I like while not being longer than the current one, but it > does lose a bit of readability.
I'd just note that from my perspective as 'the date-time guy' it's my view that ISO was never really meant to be human readable -- it's more about making dates consistently computer readable. ISO extended (2007-07-01) is more readable for humans, but it's still easily confused (is 07 a month or a day?). I bet if I asked 100 people off the street what ISO date format 99 would wonder what planet I'm from. Really, in my view, if you want human readable dates you do this: 2007-Jul-01. Even non-english speakers get that the thing in the middle is a month. Here's another idea -- how about using 'day of year'. So 2007-185. ISO compliant, shorter. Only drawback is that it's probably a bit more obscure what the number means. Anyway, no matter what you do, I think you need a 4 digit year. I think any programmer that lived that was alive in the year 00 would know that ;-) Jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
