On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 05:03 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
>
[…]
> SysTime st;
> try
> {
> // If it's -MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.FFFZ
> // If it's -MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.FFZ
> // If it's -MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.FZ
> // If it's -MM-DDTHH:MM:SS.Z
>
On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 05:30 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
>
> […]
I can see I am not going to win the -MM discussion so I'll stand
down. Until I have read the latest version of the standard – I remain
sure this is a reduced accuracy not a truncated representation. Bu
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 12:56:31 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 04:24 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
>
> learn wrote:
> > […]
> >
> > -MM is still truncated and therefore only permitted if
> > applications
> > agree to it.
>
> But didn't that
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 12:31:38 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> And this seems awkward:
>
>
> auto date = Clock.currTime();
> auto date_buffer = date.toISOString();
> …
> try {
> date = SysTime.fromISOString(date_buffer);
> } catch (DateTimeException dte) {
>
On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 04:24 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
> […]
>
> -MM is still truncated and therefore only permitted if
> applications
> agree to it.
But didn't that come is as standard in the 2000 standard along with --
MM-DD for yearless date?
> > For times hh:
And this seems awkward:
auto date = Clock.currTime();
auto date_buffer = date.toISOString();
…
try {
date = SysTime.fromISOString(date_buffer);
} catch (DateTimeException dte) {
try {
date =
SysTime(DateTime.f
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 12:06:57 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 01:52 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
> learn wrote:
> My reading is that -MM is an allowed form: I was wrong to suggest
> was allowed.
-MM is still truncated and theref
On Sat, 2017-05-13 at 01:52 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
> […]
> The ISO representation of a date is MMDD, and the extended ISO
> representation is -MM-DD. would be a truncated
> representation. The
> standard has language such as "If, by agreement, truncated
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 07:33:35 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> A priori I thought 2015 was a perfectly valid ISO8601 date-time
> specification. It appears that SysTime.fromISOString disagrees:
>
> core.time.TimeException@/usr/include/d/std/datetime.d(8553): Invalid
> ISO String:
