Re: Teach "approxidate" about weekday syntax
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Nov 18, 2005, 02:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511180350430.6359@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <46a038f90511171740x756b0336ib8b8937ee3a2af03@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Martin Langhoff wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On 11/18/05, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Seriously, I can't imagine what else we'd want. > > An error when there's a chance the result is unexpected? > > That'd be even harder to define -- I'd rather have it spit out what it > interpreted so that porcelains can display it to the user. The user > can tell at a glance if the parser is off -- for it will be off by a > mile.
Yes, it may be off by a mile. But if there exists a feature to specify a date that comfortably, people don't RTFM, but use it.
Now comes the rub: if nothing is displayed, they take it that everything was fine. *If* something was displayed, one knew that the code parsed yesterday when last year was meant. But *if not*, nobody knows.
This is dangerous. It is wrong, but does not say so.
Hth, Dscho