To add to Daniel's comment.
Lets recast the time/date discussion in another way.
The way times and dates are quoted ("human time") depends on:
- religion & denomination: the Jewish, Muslim, and Bahai religions have
their own calendars as part of their religions; Orthodox and Catholic
(includin
On Feb 22, 2:23 pm, markjr...@gmail.com ("Mark J. Reed") wrote:
> I submit that if the inputs and outputs of Temporal are UTC, then Perl
> is using UTC, not TAI. Is it TAI internally?
Only the time scale which is approved by the ITU-R for use in radio
broadcasts has any international backing. Be
2010/2/22 Mark J. Reed
> If the interface between Perl time and human time is going to be done
> through UTC, then I don't see the point in specifying that it's TAI
> behind the scenes. Especially if you're not specifying the epoch.
> The number of seconds between two points in time in UTC is ex
On 2010-Feb-22, at 2:08 am, Moritz Lenz wrote:
At least I'd find it more intuitive if smart-matching against Bool
would coerce the the LHS to Bool and then do a comparison, much like
smart-matching against strings and numbers work.
The downside is that then: given $thing { when some_function
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Buddha Buck wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>> The biggest difference proposed by the use of TAI is that when you ask
>> for the number of seconds between "2008-12-31T23:59:59+" and
>> "2009-01-01T00:00:00+" you'll get 2 becau
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> And my point is precisely that the spec doesn't define it because it is
> implementation and architecture dependant.
And what's the point of making it so? If you require arithmetic
results in TAI seconds, I don't see the benefit of not speci
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> The biggest difference proposed by the use of TAI is that when you ask
> for the number of seconds between "2008-12-31T23:59:59+" and
> "2009-01-01T00:00:00+" you'll get 2 because of the leap second. But
> you don't need to know how ma
Em Seg, 2010-02-22 às 13:31 -0500, Mark J. Reed escreveu:
> > I'd just like to add that Instant is not "more-or-less" opaque. It is
> > "entirely" opaque.
> Not according to S02, which says that an Instant will numify to the
> number of TAI seconds since "the TAI epoch". That's not opaque.
I'd ju
On Sat Feb 20 13:31:33 2010, masak wrote:
> rakudo: say False ~~ True
> rakudo ec47f3: OUTPUT«1»
> o.O
> (which is Worng)
> alpha: say False ~~ True
> alpha 30e0ed: OUTPUT«1»
> pugs: say False ~~ True
> pugs: OUTPUT«»
> * masak submits rakudobug
> can't believe no-one caught this before
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:38:06PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
: Em Dom, 2010-02-21 às 21:09 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
: > I now see that the most important determinant of DateTimes is
: > neither the Dates nor the Times themselves, but which TZ you're in.
: > I propose renaming Temporal to TZ, so
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Dom, 2010-02-21 às 21:28 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:39:20AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> : I just want to know what Perl 6 time zero is.
>> Well, there's no such thing as time 0 in Perl 6, in the sense that
>
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Not according to S0, which says that an Instant will numify to the
^
S02.
> number of TAI seconds since "the TAI epoch". That's not opaque.
--
Mark J. Reed
Em Dom, 2010-02-21 às 21:28 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:39:20AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> : I just want to know what Perl 6 time zero is.
> Well, there's no such thing as time 0 in Perl 6, in the sense that
> Instant is more-or-less opaque.
I'd just like to add that
Em Dom, 2010-02-21 às 21:09 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
> I now see that the most important determinant of DateTimes is
> neither the Dates nor the Times themselves, but which TZ you're in.
> I propose renaming Temporal to TZ, so we get TZ::Date, TZ::Time, etc,
> since they're all dependent primari
14 matches
Mail list logo
