Oops (my email address indeed!), it seems I supplied a script that goes the other way: from idates to date!. Sorry.
HY Dixit "Hallvard Ystad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:11:41 +0100): > >Hi > >I only received the message underneath today (!), and >admit that I haven't followed the discussion very >closely, >so this might already have been answered/solved to >satisfaction, but here it is anyway, a patch that I use >for idates: > >unprotect 'to-date >to-date: func [value /idate] [ > either idate [ > replace/all value: find/tail value ", " " " "/" > load value > ] [ > to date! :value ; original to-date > ] >] > >HY > >Dixit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fri, 31 Dec 2004 04:18:08 EST): > >> >>Premshree: >> >>> Umm, looks like to-idate generates dates of the type >>>"Tue, 9 Mar 2004 >>> 1:00:25 -0800" too, which would validate against the >>>feed validator. >>> However, this seems inconsistent(?). Maybe somebody who >>>has a better >>> idea can hack on this. >> >>You could fix or rewrite to--date yourself, if you wanted >>-- it's a mezzanine: >> >> source to-idate >> >>It would be good to fix it. >> >>I know the dates and times it produces are acceptable to >>many Internet >>applications (I've used the output of to-idate many >>times) >> >>But if it clearly doesn't meet the precise spec in RFC >>822 -- which asks for >>2DIGIT for time and date elements. >> >>Sunanda. >>-- >>To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to >>rebol-request >>at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject. >> > >Pr�tera censeo Carthaginem esse delendam >Write here: >-- >To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to >rebol-request >at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject. > Pr�tera censeo Carthaginem esse delendam Write here: -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to rebol-request at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
