Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:30:29 +0930 (CST) From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: brian@awfulhak.org (Brian Somers) Cc: grog@lemis.com, brian@awfulhak.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: date(1) Message-ID: <199708010300.MAA08376@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199708010240.DAA03883@awfulhak.org> from Brian Somers at "Aug 1, 97 03:40:05 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian Somers writes: >> .....] >> > The first is just wrong, and the second is a mis-quote. I originally >> > said: >> > >> >> More like: >> >> >> >>>> cc[yy[mm[dd[hh]]]]]mm[.ss]] > > Arrrghhhhhh ! Your mailer is gobbling the "open square brace" > characters ! That is *NOT* what I posted. There are two opening > brackets prior to the ``cc'' that something's eating. Mea culpa. OK, that changes things: + [[cc[yy[mm[dd[hh]]]]]mm[.ss]] + + this syntax can be expanded to: + + [[cc[yy[mm[dd]]]]mm[.ss]] + [[cc[yy[mm]]]mm[.ss]] + [[cc[yy]]mm[.ss]] + [[cc]mm[.ss]] + [mm[.ss]] + [[cc[yy[mm[dd]]]]mm] + [[cc[yy[mm]]]mm] + [[cc[yy]]mm] + [[cc]mm] + + So 'date 2001' must mean "set the date to century 20, year undefined, + month, day, and hour undefined, minute 1. + + Most newcomers to UNIX hate date(1) because the date entry format is + already too cryptic. This would just make it worse. There are some + other alternatives for date entry--tar uses one, for example, though + it may be GNU code. Why not base an implementation on one of those? In other words, yes, my mail macros screwed up the syntax, but they didn't change much. > I'm sure we can all agree that this means the above usage (with the > two wandering brackets included) is correct ? No, it's still wrong. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708010300.MAA08376>