On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM, David Soria Parra wrote:
I ran into this myself and I personally consider date() assuming your
configured TZ A
bug.
The description for date() says "local time/date" => considering TZ is not a
bug.
Timestamps are defined as UTC and the behaviour of DateTime
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM, David Soria Parra wrote:
> On 2013-02-19, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> echo date_create('@1361240634')->format('Y-m-d');
>>> // output: 2013-02-19
>>>
>>> echo date('Y-m-d',1361240634);
>>> // output: 2013-02-18
>>
>> timestamp dates are created with UTC TZ,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM, David Soria Parra wrote:
> On 2013-02-19, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >> echo date_create('@1361240634')->format('Y-m-d');
> >> // output: 2013-02-19
> >>
> >> echo date('Y-m-d',1361240634);
> >> // output: 2013-02-18
> >
> > timestamp dates are created w
On 2013-02-19, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> echo date_create('@1361240634')->format('Y-m-d');
>> // output: 2013-02-19
>>
>> echo date('Y-m-d',1361240634);
>> // output: 2013-02-18
>
> timestamp dates are created with UTC TZ, date() assumes your configured TZ.
I ran into this myself and I per
Hi!
> echo date_create('@1361240634')->format('Y-m-d');
> // output: 2013-02-19
>
> echo date('Y-m-d',1361240634);
> // output: 2013-02-18
timestamp dates are created with UTC TZ, date() assumes your configured TZ.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(4
