|
From: | Paul Eggert |
Subject: | Re: encode-time vs decode-time |
Date: | Sat, 17 Aug 2019 15:53:13 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 |
Stefan Monnier wrote:
I think neither "broken down time" nor "tm" are significantly less bad than "decoded-time", so I don't think it's worth changing the term we've been using.
I'm starting to come around to the same feeling.
So maybe we should stop documenting "decoded time" objects as being of the form (SEC MINUTE HOUR DAY MONTH YEAR DOW DST UTCOFF SUBSEC), but instead say that it's a `decoded-time` object on which you can use the `decoded-time-*` accessors (and provide a corresponding pcase pattern to replace the `(,sec ,minute ...) one).
That sounds like a reasonable way to move forward.I'm not a pcase expert. How would one go about doing the pcase stuff? That is, how does one provide a pattern so that code like (pcase time ((decoded-time :year y :month m) (some-expr-involving y & m))) can extract the year and month components Y and M from the broken-down time TIME that was created via (make-decoded-time :year y :month m)? Is there an example of doing this sort of thing somewhere?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |