[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 13:56:57 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0

Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
"Broken-down time" sounds OK to me, although there may be some
confusion: Some may assume that it's a faulty time or something.

Yes, I'm not a big fan of "broken-down time" either. Its main advantages are (1) we can't think of a better name and (2) it's used elsewhere in GNU and POSIX.

And when we get to the accessor names, it perhaps gets even more
potentially confusing:

(broken-down-seconds time)
(broken-down-zone time)

Hm...  Perhaps not ideal?

The POSIX identifier for broken-down time is 'tm', as in 'struct tm'. We could steal that identifier too, e.g., (tm-seconds time), (tm-zone time), etc. Again, not ideal, but perhaps better than (broken-down-seconds time). If the prefix 'tm-' is too short, we could expand it to 'time-tm-' or something like that.

reply via email to

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