On 27/2/03 8:14 am, Eugene van der Pijll at [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake thus: > Lawrence K. Hixson schreef: >> Most if not all extant manuscripts use the date reckoning most familiar to >> the >> author's own method be it dynastic, Year # of Herod's rule, Julian, or >> Gregorian depending upon circa. Even the Gregorian acceptance also varied by >> country/prov/state by date as well. > > But these will all(?) be implemented as DateTime::Calendars. I'm working > on the Julian calendar and the several Julian/Gregorian calendars > myself.
I'd agree with all this .. I figure that DateTime itself shouldn't be described as a 'Gregorian' module, but as a 'Gregorian AD (or CE)' module. This means there's a year 0 and -1 etc back to -INF. There'd be a DateTime::Calendar::BCAD module which takes years in the form /\d+\s*(B?CE?|AD)/. (OK, that's not quite right but you get the idea) When converting one-to-the-other, then we get the angst. Should 0 in DateTime be 1BC in ::BCAD or should it be an error or should it be 0AD? Cheers! Rick -------------------------------------------------------- �� � � � � � There are 10 kinds of people: �� those that understand binary, and those that don't. -------------------------------------------------------- �� The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck �� � is the day they start selling vacuum cleaners --------------------------------------------------------
