Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] date.c: skip fractional second part of ISO-8601

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 24, 2020, 00:46 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqh7x9emn7.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200424000707.GB1949@danh.dev>

Danh Doan <congdanhqx@gmail.com> writes:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On 2020-04-23 21:41:49+0100, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> wrote:
>> On 23/04/2020 20:28, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > Danh Doan <congdanhqx@gmail.com> writes:
>> Would is_hhmmss() and is_yyyymmdd() be more obvious abbreviations for
>> most readers?
>> 
>> Now that I type them, they do feel that bit too long... , as naming is
>> hard, maybe stick with the yms and hms, though I do keep wanting to type
>> ytd for the former..
>
> Not sure if I interpret your opinion correctly,
> Did you mean s/yms/ymd/ and s/ytd/ymd/?
>
> Even that, I couldn't grasp the meaning of the last phase?

Here is how I understood it.

Philip thinks, and I admit I have to agree with, that HMS would not be understood as hour-minute-seconds by most people, and YMD would not be as yearh-month-day, either.

His "yms" in "stick with the yms and hms" is a typo of "ymd". He is saying that even though YYMMDD and HHMMSS would look a lot more natural, it is too long to type so YMD and HMS may not be so terrible a compromise.

With the "ytd" in the last one, he is saying that another downside of saying "ymd" (other than that it is not how we usually spell year-month-date), even though "ymd" might be an acceptable compromise, is that it is too easy to get confused with year-to-date that is commonly abbreviated as "YTD".