Why doesn't common lisp have any better date handling? Like, you know,
a datetime class? Universal/decoded time seems to be a pretty weak
combo to me, and date/time handling would be something that could
*really* stand to be standard.
Chris Capel
·······@gmail.com wrote:
> Why doesn't common lisp have any better date handling? Like, you
know,
> a datetime class? Universal/decoded time seems to be a pretty weak
> combo to me, and date/time handling would be something that could
> *really* stand to be standard.
Arthur Lemmens explained a really good-seeming calendrical calculations
library he developed, at an old meeting. If you're interested in such
things, you may wish to contact him. I have little idea about his plans
to release it publicly.
Has things like a convenient read-macro for simple entry, etc etc.
Also Lispmeister mentioned an apropos book which used Lisp as the
implementation language.
http://lispmeister.com/blog/2004/07/19/
http://emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/second-edition/
+ ·······@gmail.com:
| Why doesn't common lisp have any better date handling?
| Like, you know, a datetime class?
There are lots of things that could have been in the standard that
aren't. The standards committee clearly had their hands full with
more important features way back then. And CLOS was relatively new
then.
| Universal/decoded time seems to be a pretty weak combo to me, and
| date/time handling would be something that could *really* stand to
| be standard.
Agreed. I think Erik Naggum's proposal is a good start:
http://naggum.no/lugm-time.html
It's entertaining reading, too. If you google back in this newsgroup,
you may find some further discussion about it, near the end of 1999 or
beginning of 2000.
(I wonder why he decided to stop at millisecond resolution, though.)
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction
than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is
of getting closer to the truth. -- C.P. Snow