On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Rich Bowen wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, fglock wrote: > > > About "Rata Die" and "Julian Day": I'd prefer a seconds-based > > implementation, because leap seconds would make 'seconds' be a > > varying fraction, in a day-based calendar. > > Seems to me that there is a difference between representing a particular > date/time and attempting to represent accurately the number of seconds > since time began (wherever you are measuring from). The former being > more reasonably possible. If you have a day, and 90001 seconds to work > with, you can accurately represent the time of a particular event even > for days with leap seconds, and an extra hour, for any historical event. > > I'm unclear how this is any less accurate than having a strictly seconds > based method, and it means that we can store a wider range of dates in a > smaller number.
Storing _only_ seconds would basically be impossible without loading some Math::BigNum modules, I believe. I'd like to avoid requiring that for the base object, since it'll probably slow things down a lot. If some other module _really_ needs just seconds, it can create a bignum internally. I'd like to avoid this for core modules like DateTime::Set if possible, however. -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
