Hello!
> 19xx I read as a date in the range 1900..1999 but with readability, resp. precision, limited to a 100 year span
Could you please clarify that? Does it depends on the context? What do
you mean 19xx would be within a single-choice list vs. an inclusive
list?
As of today's specification, x's are unambigously allowed only as the last
digit of the year within inclusive lists of multiple years. I wonder what
- in such a context - would be the semantic difference between
199x
and
{1990..1999}
If there is such a semantic difference, I suggest to clarify it in the
specification.
> {1957..1958, 1960-1969, 1971}
I assume you mean
{1957..1958, 1960..1969, 1971}
> So 1x90 would mean: the years 1190, 1290, 1390, 1490, 1590, 1690, 1790,1890, 1990
And 1090, too.
> What would be a use case for this?
I do not know. Obviously, 1x90 is much shorter to write, but if there are
no use cases, we could remove it.
On the other hand, an x as a last digit of a year does not significantly
shorten the expression.
> > 2011-06-xxT12:00:00
> I would not want to pursue this beyond the single 'x' at the end of a year.
My guess is that
2011-06-xxT12:00:00
would be more useful than
199x
because the latter can easily be replaced by
{1990..1999}
whereas the former could only be replaced by a quite lengthy 30-element
list such as
{2011-06-01T12:00:00, 2011-06-02T12:00:00, 2011-06-03T12:00:00, etc. }
... if inclusive lists with anything other than years were allowed, which
the specification does not exemplify nor exclude.
Regards!
SaaĊĦha,
|
