Re: Approxidate with YYYY.MM

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: May 10, 2011, 06:35 UTC
Message-ID: <4DC8DCC2.8050208@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAE5FB52-0F90-4F21-828F-7E40ED596B33@gernhardtsoftware.com>

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

Show 11 quoted lines

> (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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date#Date_format

> I'm currently nearing finals in school, so lack the time for an RFC
> patch at the moment.

Good luck :)

Michael