Re: RFC: date parser rewrite

On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 10:54, Julian Foad wrote:
> Simpler, but not much so, but I won't force the issue. In that case I
> think we should require that the specified time be between 00:00 and
> "now", so that both semantics (other times meaning "later today" and
> other times meaning "yesterday") are reserved for a future extension.

You seem to have a misconception here. In the current architecture, we
take a date string and convert it to an apr_time_t. We do not convert
it to a range of times. We're not talking about changing that
architecture.

(The user can specify a range of dates using -r '{DATE1}:{DATE2}', but
that's exactly like saying -r '{last rev as of DATE1}:{last rev as of
DATE2}'. There's some text in the book about how that can sometimes be
confusing.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 16 17:19:48 2003