Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes: > Note that an alternative is
> [2022-11-12 10:30-11:00] > [2022-11-12 10:30-11] > [2022-11-12 10:30-11:00-11] > which is much less confusing. Hmmm... is it? I read a lot different timestamps these days and currently I'm very careful reading them, especially while considering syntax details. Therefore I'm reading slowly and only few timestamps at once. But real life sometimes get hectic and stressful. And then I might only throw a glance at timestamps, hoping to get the important details - surely I will remember all the important details. :) In these cases I would much prefer a syntax that is a bit less terse like > [2022-11-12 10:30 @+02] So I would vote for Timothys variant. Considering Timothys other proposal: >> I like the way that combining these features works, but I do wonder if >> perhaps >> warning when these two bits of information don’t match should be the default >> behaviour, and the `!' used to specify which of them should be prioritised? I do not like the semantics. >> ┌──── >> │ [2022-11-12 12:00 @+07,Asia/Singapore] # warn when mismatch >> │ [2022-11-12 12:00 @+07,!Asia/Singapore] # use Asia/Singapore over +07 I read "@+07,!Asia/Singapore" as "use UTC offset +07 but be aware of time zone Asia/Singapore, from which I got the offset in the first place". On the other hand, I read "@+07,Asia/Singapore" as "use UTC offset +07, which I got from the Asia/Singapore time zone". So for me a possible warning should go with the "!" variant. In the case without "!", for me the syntax suggests a more informative meaning for the time zone name part. Therefore I would vote for Ihors variant for this part. :) -- Until the next mail..., Stefan.
