LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  March 2016

DATETIME March 2016

Subject:

Re: Section 4.9 One of a set.

From:

Nick Matthews <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 1 Apr 2016 01:17:42 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (57 lines)

The fact that the internals are in days doesn't actually stop the output 
being years, if all the input is in years - sorry for confusing the 
issue. However, it does mean that it can't cope with mixed precisions. 
But, other than using the dates as labels (in which case you would not 
be using them in calculations) I can't think of any practical use case 
for mixed precision. I note that there are only 3 precision values 
possible (or 4 if you include centuries).

On 31/03/2016 9:57 PM, GERRY wrote:
> Nick Matthews mentions that his historical calendar calculator works in
> days, but goes on to give descriptions of years. As I read the proposed
> standard,
>
> [1667..1668,1670..1672]
>
> means one year, which is 1667, 1668, 1670, 1671, or 1682. It does not
> mean one day which occurred in one of those years; the latter would be
> expressed
>
> [1667-01-01..1668-12-31,1670-01-01..1672-12-31]
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Nick Matthews" <[log in to unmask]>
> *To: *"DATETIME" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent: *Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:28:21 PM
> *Subject: *Section 4.9 One of a set.
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm implementing a historical calendar calculator and I would like to
> allow input and output in the format detailed in section 4.9.
>
> The calculator internally works in days and can output a list of date
> ranges. They are always in the form of, what I call, a "Well Ordered
> List" which means ranges do not overlap or abut one another and are in
> ascending order. The calculator would therefore treat the following as
> equivalent and only output the later:-
>
>     [1668,1670..1672,1667] == [1667..1668,1670..1672]
>
>     [..1760-12-03,1758..1761] == [..1761]
>
>     [..1800,1700..] == [..]
>
> Does this agrees with the intended use and if so, then maybe this could
> be explicitly stated.
>
> I imagine the last example [..] may be problematic (it means the entire
> time continuum) but it would be difficult to rule out the possibility of
> it arising so I have to deal with it.
>
> Nick
>
> http://historycal.org
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager