On 2011-05-08 23:22, Russel Winder wrote: > On Mon, 2011-05-09 at 01:33 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message > > [ . . . ] > > > This is great info, and very helpful. Perhaps it could be summarized into > > a general overview at the top of std.datetime's documentation page? > > My reaction was very much "This material is really great, but why isn't > it directly associated with the std.datetime package somewhere?" My > second reaction was "Jonathan should not have had to write such a long > email in reply, he should have been able to say 'Please go read <URL>' > for an explanation." > > Jonathan, Please can you take time to put the material of these and a > couple of other long emails you have written in the past about > std.datetime into pages ion the Web somewhere. This one should clearly > be part of a page "Moving from std.date to std.datetime. > > Go could really do with a new date/time handling package, one that is as > good as D's!
I could look at writing an article on moving from std.date to std.datetime, I suppose. We already have an article contest going, and it would make sense to put such an article on the site. I don't really have anywhere online that I can post anything myself though, let alone links to whatever newsgroup posts might be useful for understanding std.datetime. I would have hoped that the documentation in std.datetime would have been sufficient, but either it isn't and/or it's just too overwhelming for some folks, given some of the things that have been posted. There haven't been a lot of questions about it though since it got into Phobos, so either a fair number of people are understanding it well enough, or they aren't using it. Part of the problem with better explaining std.datetime though is that it's pretty much all in the documentation, so it's not generally clear what I should be explaining further without people asking specific questions. - Jonathan M Davis