> back and forth between just making seconds a floating point number and > having an explicit sub-second (nano/milli/zetto/groucho-seconds) slot in > the object.
I cast my 2 cents for floating point, because its what I've seen used and its easier to work with. But I think either is a good solution. I think HH::MM::SS.nnn (for an abritrary number of n's) is the way to go. > Absolutely. The API will basically work like this, I think: > > parse_foo - where foo is datetime, duration, interval, recurrence > > format_foo - same deal Cool, so we should be on the look out for DT::Interval, and DT::Recurrence? > I'm not sure how much value there is in [a Format base class]. A simple > API document might be just as useful. Its good OO methodology which tends to repeat its own rewards, often when least expected. I mentioned in a previous email that strftime() could pontentially be passed a Format object, in which case it would be nice to make sure that the blessed ref we're dealing is indeed a descendent of Format. (just an example) kellan -- "the truth is always revolutionary" [antonio gramsci] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
