[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the part argument to "date"

2006-10-04 17:33:37

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Ned Freed wrote:
I don't quite like the part argument to "date", since the possible
values are listed explicitly.  making each of them a tagged argument is
easier to express in the grammar, and it avoids the problem of
"${format}" which can fail during run-time.  outline of suggested

The main reason I chose to make this a positional argument is that tagged arguments are properly optional and I don't think the type of date test should be allowed to be optional.

Tagged arguments != Optional arguments, despite looking the same. C.f. section 2.6 of RFC 3028.

This is quite unlike the sitations with other tagged arguments - they have sensible defaults.

It's like the :over/:user arguments to the 'size' test...which are tagged and not optional.

Philip Guenther

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>