On Jan 11, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Asumu Takikawa <as...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > >> Note: in the long run, it's probably best to have a comprehensive >> srfi/19 replacement in racket/date, > > Agreed. > > srfi/19 also has some serious flaws, which I have no time at the > moment to delve into. > The one merit it has, is that being an srfi is meant to be a portable > specification. > > I suggest to disregard srfi/19 as a source of inspiration.
I don't like SRFI 19. However, there's one thing it does that racket/date doesn't, which is to provide a way to do string->date. I'm not at all convinced that it does a good job of string->date, but it does have these functions. > > You may want to look instead at (the time related parts of) SOFA > (www.iausofa.org). > > For my needs, I'm working at an FFI interface to SOFA, which I'll > release on planet when ready. I much prefer pure racket code to FFI stuff--fewer cross-platform issues, install issues, etc. With that said, it certainly looks like SOFA is the right source for standards and definitions. John _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
