Dave Rolsky wrote: > Instead of epoch internals, BTW, I > think we can simply use something like ICal or some other string based > format, since those can be compared properly as well. The only question > is whether "-01001010T101022" is less than "01000101T101022", and from the > command line quickie I just wrote, it is.
I'd rather use "01000101101022" internally, because it is more "number-like" - works with both "<=>" and "cmp". However, any "number-like" format would suffer the same precision overflow problems of "epoch". Maybe we'd better just use the DateTime object internally, whatever the performance penalties. --------- I sent Date::Set::Timezone (0.03_14) to CPAN. This is an optimized version, that could be used for performance comparisons. The methods can mix floating times (interpreted as local time in any timezone), timezoned times, and UTC times. It needs Set-Infinite 0.41_02 and Date-Set 1.25_03. - Flávio S. Glock
