* Dave Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-14 12:17]: > * Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-14 12:09]: > > * Dave Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-14 09:27]: > > > ,---- > > > | ELISP> (parse-time-string "020313 14:17") > > > | (0 17 14 nil nil nil nil nil nil) > > > `---- > > looks like the parsing can still be enhanced. *ehem* > How should it infer the year format, get the seconds > and work out the timezone from the above data? > Even if the seconds is considered "lossy" the other two items of > data seem pretty vital, even if the parser isn't an "editor".
I am using the format yymmdd on my *webpages* - and for dates only. apart from that I was using it in the attribution - with hh:mm. but if applied to messages - which century can this be? 1900? 2100? Think, man, THINK! no - try HARDER! ;-) anwyay, when there are no seconds given then this will evaluate to "nil", right? is there a problem with that? idontthinkso. folks - this format is not supposed to be a full replacement for dates in message headers. it is just *date*. and I have certainly not been using it at the beginning of the 20th century - and I will probably not us it at the end of this century. and I don't care what emacs makes of it. as if you couldn't guess. sheesh. Sven [020314 13:52 - *my* time, here.]
