On 7/15/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/15/2006 1:01 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > > On 7/14/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 7/14/2006 3:38 PM, Sebastian Luque wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> One of the big decisions when writing code is how to handle dates and > >>> times. Gabor Grothendieck provided an excellent overview of the issue in > >>> his R News 4/1 (2004) article, and many users and developers are probably > >>> using it as a guide. The proposed guideline is to use the simplest class > >>> required; as Gabor put it "use Date if possible, otherwise use chron, and > >>> otherwise use POSIX". > >>> > >>> This seems to me a very efficient strategy, judging from my own > >>> experiences and those of others users. All but the simplest calculations > >>> with POSIX objects demand great care, due to time zone and and daylight > >>> savings considerations. Therefore, I've always chosen chron for > >>> relatively complex projects, where I don't need to deal with time zones or > >>> daylight savings problems. The ease with which objects can be switched > >>> from numeric to chron representations is a major advantage IMHO¹. > >>> > >>> If Gabor's recommendations are to be followed, wouldn't it make sense to > >>> include chron in base R? Given that flexibility for handling time > >>> variables is so fundamental, the addition of chron to base R would provide > >>> users everything they need to work with time, without the need to rely on > >>> an external package. What do others think? > >> Putting something into base R essentially means that it is to be taken > >> over by R core. I think chron is being adequately maintained now (the R > >> maintainer is already a member of R core), so I don't see a need for that. > >> > >> I don't see a problem having a package on CRAN. If it's a good package > >> and people realize that it's good, and it remains available for others > >> to use, then what problem is being solved? > > > > I think the problem is that there is nothing to signal its importance. > > Perhaps > > chron should be added to the "recommended" package list. > > I think that would be preferable to making it a base package, but it's > not the only way to publicize it. Why not add something to the Wiki to > compare the various possibilities for storing dates and times?
As a recommended package it would be included in all binary releases ensuring access without a separate install and would provide more official endorsement. ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel