[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: encode-time vs decode-time

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: encode-time vs decode-time
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 00:54:07 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0

Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
I agree; calling these things encoded/decoded time isn't very clear
terminology.  "calendrical" is a mouthful, though.  And "calendar" would
imply that it belongs in the calendar package, perhaps...

I used "calendrical" rather than "calendar" to try to avoid that implication (also, because os.texi already called these broken-down timestamps "calendrical data"). But perhaps "calendrical" isn't far enough away from "calendar".

The POSIX tradition is to call these timestamps "broken-down time", and that is what glibc calls them too. How about if we use that name instead? It would help to be more consistent with other GNU code.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]