|
From: | Paul Eggert |
Subject: | Re: encode-time vs decode-time |
Date: | Sat, 17 Aug 2019 00:54:07 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 |
Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
I agree; calling these things encoded/decoded time isn't very clear terminology. "calendrical" is a mouthful, though. And "calendar" would imply that it belongs in the calendar package, perhaps...
I used "calendrical" rather than "calendar" to try to avoid that implication (also, because os.texi already called these broken-down timestamps "calendrical data"). But perhaps "calendrical" isn't far enough away from "calendar".
The POSIX tradition is to call these timestamps "broken-down time", and that is what glibc calls them too. How about if we use that name instead? It would help to be more consistent with other GNU code.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |