Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 requirements, on bootstrap)

[J. David Blackstone]

Tom Christiansen wrote:
> 
> >3. It no longer has a unix specific flavour (PS I am not anti-unix in any
> >sense) so Mac, VMS and Windows users feel less confused.
> 
> Did it get decided that we were *supposed* to make Unix and C programmers
> feel more confused and less at home with Perl?
> 
> --tom

:)  Hopefully, not.  Larry Wall did say to fix the 1900 thing, though,
and he did suggest this interface somewhat back in January.

  I'd like to see Time::Object be incorporated into whatever Perl6
date standard there is, but I'd also like to see a function-oriented
interface, as well.  (I guess I didn't specify that in my first post.)
 I think most people might just like to see localtime() return the
actual year C.E./A.D. rather than years since 1900.

  Others have also mentioned making the 0-based localtime fields be
1-based, but I don't think this is a good idea.  I thought that
standard was random and nuts until I read somewhere that the reason
was so that you can index into 0-based C or Perl arrays to pull out
day and month names.

  Being a UNIX programmer, a C programmer, and a Macintosh and Windows
user, I certainly hope that none of these groups are made to feel less
at home.

             J. David Blackstone