>
> 1) internal implementation: float point number using fractional part for
> time representation (drawback: float point side effects, ex. today+8h+8h+8h
> != tomorrow, feature: easy calculation), or julian date and milliseconds.
My vote for the latter (millisecs).
> 2) does we need to include timezone into timestamp;
Yes, good question.
Probably yes, if we can implement it properly and add it to the
syntax smoothly, while avoiding any possible confusion from the
user side.
> If only hours are included in time part then comma have to be used to
>>
> separate date and time parts or it's necessary to follow the hours with
>> a colon.
>>
>
> This VFP syntax looks very ugly to me. It makes me feel, that date is a
> kind of array (because of starting "{"). I would prefer "0t" prefixed
> numbers 0t20080209235959. If this becomes cryptic and difficult to separate
> date, time, milliseconds part, and we want to have string style (containing
> ":" separator between hours, minutes, seconds, etc.) time syntax, I'd rather
> suggest to use the existing quoted string prefixing:
> tTimeStamp := t"2009-02-09 23:59:59".
Or rather a (pseudo)function to not introduce a new syntax concept here.
> I think we should not follow VFP in multiplatform project. For me it is
> natural, that time only value has a zero julian date part.
Yes.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
