Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 19:55:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.org> Cc: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org>, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: date(1) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970810194609.3749D-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> In-Reply-To: <199708102049.VAA21847@awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Brian Somers wrote: > > Of course, in the interest of script-portability, we should not > > extend date(1) at all. Anyone trying to enter the century should > > get an error. This is the whole purpose of Posix, to increase > > portability. By creating extensions to it, we defeat the whole > > purpose just for the sake of creating a better operating system. > > Well, I've done the other changes (they only take effect if you use > the new flags). Is the general concensus that we should leave out > the century ? It's no loss if we leave it out as allowable dates Well, my comment was really more a (fairly realistic) parady of the "logic" that had just been used to shoot down a valid extension to sleep(1) (had the submitter phrased himself differently, I doubt anyone would have reacted as they did). There really is no value in _not_ adding the century (other than saving a little coding time, and the [assorted negative adjectives deleted] argument about "portability), even if there is no immediate value in adding it either. Actually, I thought the concensus went the other way. -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.970810194609.3749D-100000>