Hi All,
I don't want to force anyone to use any time format ;-)
What I was thinking was an equivalent function for TIME() that is a
standard Clipper function also if surely will be useful both way:
with and without milliseconds.
[snip]
Probably, my thought, it will be useful to have a full set of
functions giving freedom to user to choice the best for him:
HB_TTOTIME( tTimeStamp [, <cTimeFormat>] ) -> cTime
Seems similar to HB_TTOC(), plus we have HB_TTOS().
HB_TTOSEC( tTimeStamp ) -> nSeconds ( equivalent to SECONDS() )
Not "standard" format and easy to solve programmatically
if needed.
HB_TSDECODE( tTimeStamp, [ @<dDate> ], [ @<cTime> ] [,<cTimeFormat>] )
HB_TSDECODEN( tTimeStamp, [ @<dDate> ], [ @<nTime> ] )
HB_TSENCODE( <dDate>, <nTime> | <cTime> ) -> <tTimeStamp>
IMO without the *N() version, and maybe HB_TSCOMPOSE()/HB_TSDECOMPOSE()
would be better names, if these new functions are really
necessary.
So, sorry to jump in, but we have functions to convert time
to any user supplied format, plus now we have function to
strip date part from timestamp which seems to cover nicely
all formatting needs. I don't agree to add new "helper"
functions for what we have under a slightly different name.
Moreover we already have a quite wide date/time API to
keep up with.
In Clipper there was no standard for time representation,
so we should take return format of Seconds() and Time()
quite arbitrary and they IMO need no special support in
Harbour.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
