Re: Approxidate with YYYY.MM

On 05/10/2011 08:35 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:

Brian Gernhardt venit, vidit, dixit 09.05.2011 21:02:

quoted

(This is in response to a discussion on #parrot.)

Rakudo (https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/) uses tags of the form
YYYY.MM for their monthly releases.  When we were attempting to find
the cause of a slowdown, somewhat was trying to find what commits
occurred after the 2011.01 release with "git log --after=2011.01".
His mistake was pointed out but this led to the confusion of why this
was parsed as "May 1 2011" instead of "Jan 1 2011".  Shouldn't
date.c:match_multi_number() parse something with only two numbers as
a beginning of month instead of allowing it to pass through to the
generic parsing?

I just don't think there is a format like that. There is dd.mm.[yy]yy
and apparently also yyyy.mm.dd, but without leading zeros in mm for the
latter. Our date parser also takes "." for a space so that you don't
need to quote a space ("1.day.ago"). I can see the logic behind parsing
2011.01 as January 2011, but it's a stretch from the existing formats:

It would be far more logical to parse "2011-01" as "January 2011" as
that's the preferred way to write month-precision dates in most
countries that use both the metric system and the gregorian calender.

I've never seen that date-type with dot as a separator, but with the
dash it's very, very common.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.