[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] Date/time package

Peter Bex scripsit:

> It's probably sufficient to specify that the base-chronologies are
> relative to *some* ("preferred"?) coordinated standard time, and
> perhaps note that this is defined as UTC for all the predefined ones.


> Non-earth-based chronologies look like an ideal way to test the
> generality of the proposal, but it's up to you to determine the
> scope of the proposal.  Joda time doesn't seem to deal with these(?)

Presumably the MTC chronology would have era (corresponding to a
particular Mars mission), sol-of-era, minute-of-sol, second-of-minute,
and instance fields.

> That sounds like a good way to do it if the goal is to be strict in
> how libraries can be extended.

Standards enumerate reserved names, leaving the rest to the implementation
or the user.  If the user imports specific libraries, all the names not
defined in those libraries by the standard are reserved to the user.

> Ah, that could be quite useful actually!  It can be derived from the
> text but it's probably good to state this explicitly.

Under "Date objects" it says:  "For example, with respect to the ISO,
Gregorian, or Julian chronologies, a date may represent a specific year,
a specific week of a specific year, or an instant in time precise to
a second."  If you think more is needed, please provide language.

John Cowan   cowan@x    http://ccil.org/~cowan
If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a
terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always
reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an
enemy country in wartime.  The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer
that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history.  --Northrop Frye

Scheme-reports mailing list