Re: Defeating DateTime::new hour limitation

[Claus Färber]

Dave Rolsky schrieb:
But there are only 24 hours in a day. What should DateTime do with "hour
=> 24"?
It should be the beginning of the next day, of course (i.e. 00.00 on the 
next day).
As ISO 8601 defines T2400, people might expect that behaviour.

Try this: DateTime->new( ..., hour => $hour % 24, ... );
That's one day off.

Claus

Re: Defeating DateTime::new hour limitation

[Dave Rolsky]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Claus Färber wrote:

> Dave Rolsky schrieb:
> > But there are only 24 hours in a day. What should DateTime do with "hour
> > => 24"?
>
> It should be the beginning of the next day, of course (i.e. 00.00 on the
> next day).
> As ISO 8601 defines T2400, people might expect that behaviour.

Then it can be handled in the DT::F::ISO8601.


-dave

/*===
House Absolute Consulting
www.houseabsolute.com
===*/

Re: Defeating DateTime::new hour limitation

[Systems Tweak]

   Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:25:41 +0200
   From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

   Dave Rolsky schrieb:
   > But there are only 24 hours in a day. What should DateTime do with "hour
   > => 24"?

   It should be the beginning of the next day, of course (i.e. 00.00 on the 
   next day).

Actually in my special case, it was not the next day.  Since later I
realized a different approach prevented needing a hour=>24, I'd say
that a new day object doesn't need my request.

   As ISO 8601 defines T2400, people might expect that behaviour.

But this is a break of the modules rules, there is another module
handling dates that does follow your suggestion, when it is setup in a
special mode.  I was actually looking for a special mode in td.


   > Try this: DateTime->new( ..., hour => $hour % 24, ... );

   That's one day off.

Well, actually it would have ruined my reasons for using hour=24 in
the first place.

r