Re: Four patches for LWP (and comments)
Marc Hedlund (hedlund@best.com)
Mon, 7 Aug 1995 10:40:04 -0700
>> * I completely agree that LWP::Date should be a standard Perl
>> module -- there's no particular reason why it should be under the heading
>> of LWP. How about Date::RFC1123?
>
>Hmmm... How about a Date::Parse, which will parse any date known to
>computing mankind, and then Date::{RFC1123,...} to output strings?
>Note that the Date.pm is not perfect or complete. I nearly added a
>fallback format parser, which guesses dates in any silly format such as
>"1995 21 Jan 12:00 Wednesday" etc. That'd be neat (if fairly useless in
>practice)
You mean Date::AI? :) I like your suggestion for parsing in one and
output in another.
>> I remember Martijn saying something at one point like "just because a name
>> space is available doesn't mean we own it."
>
>My main point was we should not use WWW for the LWP model, and never put
>LWP::Protocol::gopher into Gopher:: etc.
That makes sense.
Marc Hedlund <hedlund@best.com>