At 06:00 AM 2004-07-14, Bruno Negrão wrote:
Hi Sean, i coudn't get what you mean (it is too colloquial for my poor
english understanding...) What do you mean? Should i keep on this project
or give it up?
Oops, sorry. I think you should go ahead with your project.
--
Sean M. Burke
* Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 03:25]:
Ah, so you reinvented DateTime::Format::Duration.
Actually, I think he reinvented Time::Seconds, which is part of
the Time::Piece distro.
Well, both, I guess. Goes to show how many, *many* people have
written this sort of thing before in
Actually, I think he reinvented Time::Seconds, which is part of
the Time::Piece distro.
No guys, Time::Seconds doesn't give the same answer my module does. Time::Seconds
converts seconds entirely in minutes or hours or
days or etc. For example, it says that 7341 seconds are:
2,03916 hours
Enh, sorta. Most of the work of Time::Duration is figuring out how to
whittle down a multiple-units expression of a time to a particular degree
of concision. It also doesn't have the concept of month. You're
probably better off just starting over, since stuff like $mins
=
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:01:30PM -0300, Bruno Negr?o wrote:
Ah, so you reinvented DateTime::Format::Duration.
use DateTime::Format::Duration;
my $fmt = DateTime::Format::Duration-new(
pattern = '%H hours, %M minutes, %S seconds',
normalize = 1,
);
I would rather see more standardization on the use of the DateTime
project, in much the same way that people think of DBI when they think
of accessing databases through Perl.
In this case, perhaps some clear documentation and examples (just like
the one above) would be the best solution. I
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:24:43PM -0300, Bruno Negr?o wrote:
I agree Mark, i've posted my module on the DateTime mailing list. Let's see what
they say about it.
But i think the DateTime project is not gaining fair promotion once their modules
are not even appearing on the main Module
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Stosberg) writes:
I think part of the solution to fix that is to have more contributions to the
CPAN ratings system, and consider the ratings in the search results.
The searching in search.cpan.org is, unfortunately, pretty awful. At some
point I plan to sit down and
I think there is a separate more general issue that the module list is
losing relevance. I think a lot of people (like myself), use
http://search.cpan.org as a primary method for finding useful modules.
As a CPAN user, I don't consult the list when looking for modules. As
a module writer, I
Simon Cozens sent the following bits through the ether:
The searching in search.cpan.org is, unfortunately, pretty awful. At some
point I plan to sit down and try using Plucene as a search engine for
module data.
I thought that would be a good idea too, so I tried it. It works
*fairly* well.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Bruno Negrão wrote:
I would rather see more standardization on the use of the DateTime
project, in much the same way that people think of DBI when they think
of accessing databases through Perl.
In this case, perhaps some clear documentation and examples (just like
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:08:16PM +0100, Leon Brocard wrote:
Simon Cozens sent the following bits through the ether:
The searching in search.cpan.org is, unfortunately, pretty awful. At some
point I plan to sit down and try using Plucene as a search engine for
module data.
I thought
* Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 19:26]:
Some of them _are_ registered, but that document you're
referring to hasn't been regenerated since 2002/08/27! I wish
the CPAN folks would just remove it if it won't be generated
regularly.
Does anyone else here think that the list should
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 19:26]:
Some of them _are_ registered, but that document you're
referring to hasn't been regenerated since 2002/08/27! I wish
the CPAN folks would just remove it if it won't be generated
regularly.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott W Gifford) writes:
It would be interesting to calculate the importance of a module by
how many other modules link to it, either via a use statement or by
reference in the POD, much like Google does with Web page links.
Someone's already done this for CPAN, but I can't
* Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 19:41]:
Does anyone else here think that the list should probably
just be done away with entirely?
Given the fact that most authors seem to not register their
stuff, the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list is slow as heck, and that the
web pages never get
* Scott W Gifford [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-14 19:38]:
It would be interesting to calculate the importance of a
module by how many other modules link to it, either via a use
statement or by reference in the POD, much like Google does
with Web page links.
I was thinking the same thing, and I
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:30:59PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:08:16PM +0100, Leon Brocard wrote:
Simon Cozens sent the following bits through the ether:
The searching in search.cpan.org is, unfortunately, pretty awful. At some
point I plan to sit down and try
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:34:08PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 06:30:59PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
XML::HTTP::Network::Daemon::TextProcessing::Business::Papersize::GIS
so that people can find it,
That's what the Description field is for.
There's a Description
Hi all,
I've made a new module, I'm thinking to call it Time::Seconds::GroupedBy. It
is designed to convert an amount of seconds in other time units. I'm calling
time units SECONDS, MINUTES, HOURS, DAYS, MONTHS, and YEARS . The user
defines which will be the time unit to group the amount of
Hi
all,I've made a new module, I'm thinking to call it
Time::Seconds::GroupedBy. Itis designed to convert an amount of seconds in
other time units. I'm callingtime units SECONDS, MINUTES, HOURS, DAYS,
MONTHS, and YEARS . The userdefines which will be the time unit to group the
amount of
Hi
all,I've made a new module, I'm thinking to call it
Time::Seconds::GroupedBy. Itis designed to convert an amount of seconds in
other time units. I'm callingtime units SECONDS, MINUTES, HOURS, DAYS,
MONTHS, and YEARS . The userdefines which will be the time unit to group the
amount of
Is there any reason to use it in preference to DateTime::Duration?
Hi Aristotle,
My module differs from DateTime::Duration because it is not dealing with dates. It
does not try to foresee which is a future of past
date based in a bunch of seconds.
It just provide a means to calculate a time
* Bruno Negrão [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-13 23:53]:
Hi Aristotle,
My module differs from DateTime::Duration because it is not
dealing with dates. It does not try to foresee which is a
future of past date based in a bunch of seconds.
It just provide a means to calculate a time quantity
Hm
It just provide a means to calculate a time quantity that is
more human readable than a big number of seconds.
You mean, it deals with a... duration?
Can I call it time quantity?! ;-)
Ah, so you reinvented DateTime::Format::Duration.
use DateTime::Format::Duration;
my
On 7/13/2004 8:01 PM, Bruno Negrão wrote:
Oh, what a sadness. Indeed i never saw the DateTime project before.
But still my module is far easier to use than DateTime::Format::Duration.
Do you believe it is worth to publish it in Time::Seconds::GroupBy?
Not sadness, experience. Actually this was an
Seems related to, and an extension of, Time::Duration.
Perhaps you could extend that module rather than create a new one.
Yes, really were addressing the same problem. However, Time::Duration doesn't output
the time numbers separately, instead, it throws
a static string written in english
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Ah, so you reinvented DateTime::Format::Duration.
Actually, I think he reinvented Time::Seconds, which is part of the
Time::Piece distro.
-dave
/*===
House Absolute Consulting
www.houseabsolute.com
===*/
28 matches
Mail list logo
