On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 09:41:06AM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: > >> Well we should still have POSIX::localtime(). > > >True, and hopefully in a more optimal form. > > Were you planning on updating the Standard? :-) Sure, everything is up for grabs right :) Actually I meant the way the POSIX module is so big but has little content as it is really just a API to the C library (or it should be). Graham.
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 requirements, on boo... Tim Jenness
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 requirements, o... Tom Christiansen
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 requirement... Simon Cozens
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 require... Nathan Wiger
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 req... J. David Blackstone
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 req... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl... Andy Dougherty
- Re: date interface (was Re: ... Graham Barr
- Re: date interface (was Re: ... Tom Christiansen
- Re: date interface (was Re: ... Graham Barr
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 requirement... Tim Jenness
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 requirement... J. David Blackstone
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 requirement... Dan Sugalski
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 requirement... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 require... Dan Sugalski
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 requirement... Matt Sergeant
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 require... Bart Lateur
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 requirements, o... J. David Blackstone
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 requirement... Dan Sugalski
- Re: date interface (was Re: perl6 require... Simon Cozens