Re: RFC: date parser rewrite

On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 14:37, mark benedetto king wrote:
> If we are to replace it, we must do so before 1.0 so that its replacement
> will not be forced to support a superset of its behaviour.

+1. Since I think we only use this kind of date-parsing in one place
(the -r '{DATE}' argument), I don't think this change is very
destabilizing, even though it churns a lot of code.

Your chosen date formats look fine to me.

> I believe that these formats are necessary and sufficient for the 1.0
> release. The merits of more complex specifications, such as "two
> fortnights ago", "four score and seven minutes hence", and "the Ides of
> March in the most recent Chinese year of the dragon" can be discussed
> afterwards.

These aren't date formats actually supported by getdate.y, but there are
some really weird ones. For example:

  2 days ago yesterday 4
  2 fortnights ago 1630
  third thursday

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Dec 14 20:59:43 2003