Ben Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 12:05:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
>> Not all languages use suffixes when writing numbers. In German, for
>> example, you'd just write "14. Juli". (Actually, it's spoken
>> "vierzehn*ter* Juli", but one does not write "14te
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 12:05:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> Iain Truskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > * Ben Bennett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [15 Jul 2003 13:10]:
> > My quibble; the name. I'm not a huge fan of ::Simple and ::Lite.
> > Unfortunately, I can't think of a nice alternate for i
Dave Rolsky schreef:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Ben Bennett wrote:
>
> > > 200210131:02
> >
> > No! Egads :-) Actually I wasn't accepting the form 200210130102
> > either (I will accept 20021013T0102). Should I?
>
> Is the former form unambiguous? If so, you mighta s well accept it.
20021013
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:40:16AM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Ben Bennett wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I was thinking that this would be done when generating the
> locale modules. It shouldn't be _too_ hard, I think.
Sorry, that was where I was intending to fiddle with, I just w
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Ben Bennett wrote:
> > We'd have to look at the _actual_ format strings to do this, but it's
> > certainly possible.
>
> Ok, I will play around with this and see if all of the locales have
> understandable short forms.
Actually, I was thinking that this would be done when gen
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Ben Bennett wrote:
> > and maybe even:
> >
> > 200210131:02
>
> No! Egads :-) Actually I wasn't accepting the form 200210130102
> either (I will accept 20021013T0102). Should I?
Is the former form unambiguous? If so, you mighta s well accept it.
> > Also, don't forge
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Ben Bennett wrote:
> > > Ommissions from Date::Parse:
> > > - July 14th will not be parsed (I don't have localized info on the
> > >numeric suffixes)
> >
> > How about you just assume /\d{1,2}\w+/?
>
> Perhaps, I will play with it when the rest is finished. Input from
>
On 7/15/03 8:05 AM, Ben Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:14:00AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
>> I'm sure you're already doing this, but just in case, make sure to allow for
>> single-digit numbers where there is no ambiguity. [...]
>
> Yes.
(Also stuff like "10/25/2003 5 p.m." Just ch
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:39:37PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Ben Bennett wrote:
>
> > Which leads to my problem, there appears to be no simple way to get
> > the date order to differentiate m/d/y from d/m/y. I can look at the
> > time formats and try to work it out, but tha
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:14:00AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> On 7/14/03 11:10 PM, Ben Bennett wrote:
[...]
> Sweet, someone took the bai--...er, "picked up the baton" ;)
Well I have been playing around with the idea for a while, but when
the locale stuff got in I decided it was time to stop fi
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 01:56:53PM +1000, Iain Truskett wrote:
> * Ben Bennett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [15 Jul 2003 13:10]:
[...]
>
> My quibble; the name. I'm not a huge fan of ::Simple and ::Lite.
> Unfortunately, I can't think of a nice alternate for it.
Ok. I will think about that (suggestions we
> > > My quibble; the name. I'm not a huge fan of ::Simple and ::Lite.
> > > Unfortunately, I can't think of a nice alternate for it.
> >
> > I usually think of ::Simple as referring to a reduced interface. Maybe
> > ::Basic is a better namespace.
>
> I like ::Common, since it's supposed to handle
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
> > My quibble; the name. I'm not a huge fan of ::Simple and ::Lite.
> > Unfortunately, I can't think of a nice alternate for it.
>
> I usually think of ::Simple as referring to a reduced interface. Maybe
> ::Basic is a better namespace.
I like ::Common
> My quibble; the name. I'm not a huge fan of ::Simple and ::Lite.
> Unfortunately, I can't think of a nice alternate for it.
I usually think of ::Simple as referring to a reduced interface. Maybe ::Basic is a
better namespace.
-J
--
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Ben Bennett wrote:
> Which leads to my problem, there appears to be no simple way to get
> the date order to differentiate m/d/y from d/m/y. I can look at the
> time formats and try to work it out, but that seems a bit dodgy if you
> ever change the parser, plus I assume that
On 7/14/03 11:56 PM, Iain Truskett wrote:
> My quibble; the name. I'm not a huge fan of ::Simple and ::Lite.
> Unfortunately, I can't think of a nice alternate for it.
::Basic, maybe? Or ::Default, if we want to be boring about it.
>> Which leads to my problem, there appears to be no simple way
On 7/14/03 11:10 PM, Ben Bennett wrote:
> I am taking a whack at DT::F::Simple (please speak up now if anyone
> else wants to claim this project) that can parse things that are
> similar to the ones that Date::Parse can do.
Sweet, someone took the bai--...er, "picked up the baton" ;)
> Namely:
>
* Ben Bennett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [15 Jul 2003 13:10]:
> I am taking a whack at DT::F::Simple (please speak up now if anyone
> else wants to claim this project) that can parse things that are
> similar to the ones that Date::Parse can do.
I was going to do it, but probably wouldn't get around to
18 matches
Mail list logo
