If I understand where you were going with this you want to distill the RD parts out of DT and DT::Duration. I wouldn't mind seeing this if DT used these base classes itself. As I'm a little concerned about the long term modularity of DT.
I doubt this will happen because of all the overhead that this adds. It might be worth doing just to look at how it effects the design. I have a couple of difference ideas... > RFC: DateTime::Calendar::RataDie > > - A common calendar object for conversions to/from different calendars > > - Replaces the 'rd' value that is now used for this purpose I'd like to see this as a base class. Although I guess a base class would just implement utc_rd_values() and from_object(). Maybe even just as stubs that croak. hmm... I guess a conformance suite would be better. What is it that your trying to accomplish? DT::C::* consistency? The more I think about it the more I think a conformance suite would be useful. > There is no hours, months, weeks, years. If those types of things are needed you should just subclass DT. > - DateTime::Calendar::RataDie::Duration > > a common "duration" object to compare dates between calendars It would be nice to make this a base class as well that adds methods to handle addition/subtraction of DT::Duration objects. -J --
