On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Stephen R. Wilcoxon wrote:
> > So given those constraints, here are the potential options on the table,
> > _so far_ (I welcome others that fit into the above constraints).
> >
> > use DateTime;
> > use DateTime::Parse::MySQL; # this needs a better name
> > my $dt = DateTime::Parse::MySQL->new_datetime( $mysql_dt );
> > print DateTime::Parse::MySQL->mysql_datetime( $dt );
> >
> > or
> >
> > use DateTime;
> > use DateTime::Parse::MySQL;
> > my $dt = DateTime->from_mysql_datetime( $mysql_dt );
> > print $dt->to_mysql_string();
>
> I prefer the second option of these two. It's more compact and easier to
> read (to me).
>
> I wouldn't mind the first option either if "print $dt->mysql_datetime"
> would work instead of "print DateTime::Parse::MySQL->mysql_datetime($dt)".
> It's just too verbose.
The whole point of the first option is to _not_ add methods to the
DateTime package.
How about "$dt->representation('mysql')->mysql_datetime"? That's a bit
better. And representations could be added by having an output module
register itself with DateTime.pm. But that API seems a bit unintuitive to
me.
-dave
/*=======================
House Absolute Consulting
www.houseabsolute.com
=======================*/
