On 19.05.2011 15:38, Greg Stein wrote:
> 2011/5/19 Branko Čibej <brane_at_e-reka.si>:
>> On 19.05.2011 11:53, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:38:55PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>> Why? That doesn't make sense. Second of all, all these wordy aliases are
>>>> just shorthands for real timestamps anyway -- by your reasoning, you
>>>> could eliminate all of them.
>>> There is otherwise no way to express dates relative to the current time.
>> So instead of introducing a subset of the silliness that was in CVS, why
>> then don't you invent an unambiguous format that /can/ express dates
>> relative to the current time?
>>
>> For example, you might support: svn -r {-1.12:13:56}, meaning one day,
>> twelve hours, 13 minutes and 56 seconds ago.
> "one day ago" is certainly easier than "-1"
>
> I don't see this as "silliness" but an easy way to express certain
> times. So what if it doesn't do everything? It doesn't the easy stuff
> just fine. It hasn't made the medium or hard stuff any more difficult.
So someone who's not a native English speaker (or a fair imitation like
myself) will have to go looking at the docs ... it is silliness. We
don't parse anything but ISO dates, and now suddenly we'll parse whole
essays just to get the equivalent of that "-1 day". Sigh.
-- Brane
Received on 2011-05-19 16:26:10 CEST