Re: Four patches for LWP (and comments)
Tim Bunce (Tim.Bunce@ig.co.uk)
Tue, 8 Aug 1995 17:57:06 +0100
> From: Gisle Aas <aas@oslonett.no>
>
> > >> * 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.
>
> The module list have these entries:
>
> Date::
> ::GetDate adcf Yacc based free-format date parser in C TOMC
> ::GetDate adpf Byacc based free-format date parser in Perl GBARR
>
> Has anyone checked them out? Do they do what we want?
>
One is big and slow (yacc grammar implemented in perl), the other is big
and fast (yacc grammar implemented in C).
> I don't want to put another module into the Date:: name space before we know.
>
Given that the date formats are a small known set and one or two formats should
account for the majority of all dates seen I'd go for a new module customised
for this purpose. The GetDate modules are heavy weights, best suited for
free-format text entry.
> --Gisle
>
Tim.