2011/5/19 Branko Čibej <brane_at_e-reka.si>:
> 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.
Or just not use the feature?
(It is, after all, completely undocumented for a reason.)
-Hyrum
Received on 2011-05-19 16:51:58 CEST