On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, John Peacock wrote: > Dave Rolsky wrote: > > > > So you want to greatly complicate the internals (and slow it down, I'd > > bet), for what? > > > > Tell you what; I'll write an implementation of my way (probably in XS) and we'll > compare. I think you're mistaken; your storage methods requires conversion for > all nontrivial operations (e.g. $dt->year), whereas mine only needs a conversion > when changing bases (e.g. $dt->eastern_orthodox_easter). The only issue I need > to deal with is determining which sub's compromise the actual implementation and > which are producing values derivable from those subs. Going forward, it would > be a very good idea to restructure the code so that this is obvious. I would > even suggest going ahead and pulling all of the internals code out of the base > module and create a default implementation module.
+1 for this approach. Having multiple possible internals implementations is a good thing, particularly if the API does not need to change, and if these implementations can go on in parallel. -- Nothing is perfekt. Certainly not me. Success to failure. Just a matter of degrees.
