On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Daisuke Maki wrote: > My main concerns in trying to encode this into a (strp|strf)time-ish > format are as follows: > > - Encoding is actually a combination of number representation > and whatever else format. for example, the era notation is > actually 1) era/roman 2) era/double-byte roman 3) era/kanji. > - I personally think that the encoding scheme for (strp|strf)time > is horrendous in some cases -- %[a-zA-Z] is just confusing > sometimes -- it certainly doesn't make it easier for the Japanese > audience > - I'm already jumping through hoops trying to write regexps that > match unicode Japanese. Will this add even more to the pain? > > Hmmm, I guess I'm just having a hard time trying to picture what it is > that I gain while I feel that I lose a lot of the ease of use and > maintainability by adding this (strp|strf)time-ish generalization on the > formatting. But I may be wrong. Please let me know if you have any > comments on this.
I don't know that all possible sets of formatted outputs really lend themselves well to strftime notation, and I don't think you should feel obligated to come up with one here. At the very least, I think the existing interface to DT::F::Japanese should continue to exist. -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
