Re: expression of seconds (was Re: A new era for Temporal)
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Darren Duncan wrote: conceptual and a usability and a math point of view. If users only want the integer value, then they can just store the second as an integer in the first place. As for the name, well whole_second can be made shorter, or its Users will not always control how the DateTime object is constructed. Nonetheless, when they want to know what is the value for seconds, I think _most_ users will want an integer, not a floating point number. -dave /* http://VegGuide.org http://blog.urth.org Your guide to all that's veg House Absolute(ly Pointless) */
expression of seconds (was Re: A new era for Temporal)
Dave Rolsky wrote: On a smaller point, I think second vs whole_second is the wrong Huffman coding. I'd think most people want the integer value. Well, whatever you call things, the most important thing is to keep the seconds count as a single number which can do fractions, or if you really must break them up, then have the fractional second part as a real in 0..^1. The whole nanosecond-integer-fixed-onesizefitsall-subsecond-precision thing is a terrible hack. Keeping a single number for seconds is best from a conceptual and a usability and a math point of view. If users only want the integer value, then they can just store the second as an integer in the first place. As for the name, well whole_second can be made shorter, or its value could automatically truncate if users assigned it to an Int. Even Larry said that using reals for seconds if we're supporting fractional seconds is preferred in Synopsis 2, and I agree; if people think otherwise, then what is the rationale? -- Darren Duncan
Re: expression of seconds (was Re: A new era for Temporal)
Darren Duncan wrote: Dave Rolsky wrote: On a smaller point, I think second vs whole_second is the wrong Huffman coding. I'd think most people want the integer value. Well, whatever you call things, the most important thing is to keep the seconds count as a single number which can do fractions, or if you really must break them up, then have the fractional second part as a real in 0..^1. The whole nanosecond-integer-fixed-onesizefitsall-subsecond-precision thing is a terrible hack. Keeping a single number for seconds is best from a conceptual and a usability and a math point of view. If users only want the integer value, then they can just store the second as an integer in the first place. As for the name, well whole_second can be made shorter, or its value could automatically truncate if users assigned it to an Int. my Int $x implies a constraint, *not* a coercion. That's: $dt.seconds.Int Though even clearer and same number of characters as whole_seconds is: $dt.seconds.round Jonathan
Re: expression of seconds (was Re: A new era for Temporal)
Jonathan Worthington wrote: Darren Duncan wrote: Dave Rolsky wrote: On a smaller point, I think second vs whole_second is the wrong Huffman coding. I'd think most people want the integer value. Well, whatever you call things, the most important thing is to keep the seconds count as a single number which can do fractions, or if you really must break them up, then have the fractional second part as a real in 0..^1. The whole nanosecond-integer-fixed-onesizefitsall-subsecond-precision thing is a terrible hack. Keeping a single number for seconds is best from a conceptual and a usability and a math point of view. If users only want the integer value, then they can just store the second as an integer in the first place. As for the name, well whole_second can be made shorter, or its value could automatically truncate if users assigned it to an Int. my Int $x implies a constraint, *not* a coercion. That's: $dt.seconds.Int Though even clearer and same number of characters as whole_seconds is: $dt.seconds.round Jonathan Yes, exactly, thank you Jonathan. -- Darren Duncan
Re: expression of seconds (was Re: A new era for Temporal)
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Jonathan Worthington jonat...@jnthn.netwrote: Though even clearer and same number of characters as whole_seconds is: $dt.seconds.round This makes more sense to me than the first example you listed because when dealing with time measurement, I rarely think of seconds that are broken down to sub-measurements. Rather, I often think of seconds as an aggregation of milliseconds, so rounding the fraction (a second is internally a fraction of milliseconds) Just Makes Sense. The idea continues downwards to the smallest represented unit of time and upwards to the largest represented unit. -Jason s1n Switzer
