[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the part argument to "date"

2006-10-06 11:43:09

On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 16:08 -0700, Ned Freed wrote:
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 
be allowed to be optional. This is quite unlike the sitations with other 
arguments - they have sensible defaults.

my suggested default is "iso8601" which seems useful to me, at least for
a relational comparator.  but if you don't like it, by all means make
PART required.  (I should've called it DATE-PART, btw.)

I like having a required tagged argument (AFAIK that would be a first in sieve)
even less than I like giving part a default value.

In any case, unless someone else chimes in with an opinion on this I'm sticking
with a positional argument.


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