Subject: Re: Approxidate with YYYY.MM

From: Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 08:35:46 +0200

Brian Gernhardt venit, vidit, dixit 09.05.2011 21:02:
> (This is in response to a discussion on #parrot.)
> 
> Rakudo (https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/) uses tags of the form
> YYYY.MM for their monthly releases.  When we were attempting to find
> the cause of a slowdown, somewhat was trying to find what commits
> occurred after the 2011.01 release with "git log --after=2011.01".
> His mistake was pointed out but this led to the confusion of why this
> was parsed as "May 1 2011" instead of "Jan 1 2011".  Shouldn't
> date.c:match_multi_number() parse something with only two numbers as
> a beginning of month instead of allowing it to pass through to the
> generic parsing?

I just don't think there is a format like that. There is dd.mm.[yy]yy
and apparently also yyyy.mm.dd, but without leading zeros in mm for the
latter. Our date parser also takes "." for a space so that you don't
need to quote a space ("1.day.ago"). I can see the logic behind parsing
2011.01 as January 2011, but it's a stretch from the existing formats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date#Date_format

> I'm currently nearing finals in school, so lack the time for an RFC
> patch at the moment.

Good luck :)

Michael