> > How about moving the pure-Perl DT::LeapSecond to DateTime.pm/ ?
>
> Seems like a good idea. Do you want to do it or should I?
I'd like to keep it separated. I believe it maybe useful outside the context of DT.
-J
--
Dave Rolsky wrote:
>
> Ok, I did some benchmarks and it looks like date math involving leap
> seconds (basically an DateTime object where the time zone is _not_
> floating) has sped up about 10% or so, which is definitely a good thing.
How about moving the pure-Perl DT::LeapSecond to DateTime.pm/
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> I just checked this in, but I'm not sure if it's much faster. It'd be
> good if someone who knows more about about C could look at the
> implementation and see if there's anything they can think of to improve
> it. Also, I should probably change the gener
Dave Rolsky wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Flavio S. Glock wrote:
>
> > Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, I did some benchmarks and it looks like date math involving leap
> > > seconds (basically an DateTime object where the time zone is _not_
> > > floating) has sped up about 10% or so, which i
> I suspect updates to it will be quite infrequent, though. Other than new
> leap seconds, why else would it change?
I hadn't read ahead in my email. I was concerned about the functionality being
folding into the DT namespace and the DT::Leapsecond interface disappearing. That
didn't happen s
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Flavio S. Glock wrote:
> Dave Rolsky wrote:
> >
> > Ok, I did some benchmarks and it looks like date math involving leap
> > seconds (basically an DateTime object where the time zone is _not_
> > floating) has sped up about 10% or so, which is definitely a good thing.
>
> How a
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
> > > How about moving the pure-Perl DT::LeapSecond to DateTime.pm/ ?
> >
> > Seems like a good idea. Do you want to do it or should I?
>
> I'd like to keep it separated. I believe it maybe useful outside the context of DT.
I suspect updates to it will
I just checked this in, but I'm not sure if it's much faster. It'd be
good if someone who knows more about about C could look at the
implementation and see if there's anything they can think of to improve
it. Also, I should probably change the generated code to use the binary
search method that F
