On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Ilmari Karonen wrote: > I did indeed read the entire thread. But as my mailreader doesn't > really do threading, I may have become confused while doing so and > perhaps picked the wrong message to respond to. I apologize if this is > indeed the case.
And I'm sorry for being snippy. I think I've sent too many messages here in the last week (140 or so at last count). > Apart from the wordiness, I really have no objection to the former > syntax. More importantly, it occurs to me that if we go with the former > syntax (or any of its proposed variations), support for the latter could > be easily added later, should it be found desirable after all. Where it stands now is: my $foo = DateTime::Formats::Foo->new( ... ); my $dt = $foo->parse( ... ); or for some formats (like ICal): my $dt = $foo->parse_datetime; my $dur = $foo->parse_duration; print $foo->as_datetime( ... ); print $foo->as_duration( ... ); But year, I realized there's nothing stopping me from implementing the "stick methods in DateTime" namespace thing later. -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
