You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the example below there is a demonstration of a date! syntax and path! syntax "clash". The question is whether this is intended and whether it is optimal.
If you are saying that you want the following to be equivalent
'a/6/Nov/2013/17:43'a/6-Nov-2013/17:43
I'll say -1, because it could lead to unexpected results. i.e., how do I escape it if I happen to have path values that would unintentionally become a date?
Rebolbot commented on Nov 18, 2013:
Submitted by:Ladislav
"If you are saying that you want the following to be equivalent..." - I am not saying that. I am saying that there is a "syntax clash" that causes problems.
Rebolbot commented on Nov 18, 2013:
Submitted by:Gregg
Ah, I think I see what you're saying now. You would have to put the date in a paren or something today. Do you have an idea for a cleaner solution?
Rebolbot commented on Nov 19, 2013:
Submitted by:Ladislav
The ISO date format does not "clash" with path syntax. Supporting ISO 8601 we will be better off in this sense as well. See #2092. Also, it is possible to use paren in path is some cases, which may be a way to circumvent the problem.
Rebolbot commented on Nov 19, 2013:
Submitted by:Gregg
I like that the slash in a date makes the time a refinement of the date, but it does clash in paths. I hesitate to suggest it, but "@" might be an understandable delimiter. It is non-standard, but reads well as "at" in this context. I also just found that REBOL can load it, thinking it's an email. e.g. 19-Nov-2013@12:30. Not all date forms load that way, and I very much doubt if anyone is using that feature that would complain about their code breaking.
That said, I can live with ISO8601, as I think it would be good to be able to load it in any case. I don't like the T, but the benefits may outweigh my feelings. :-)
Rebolbot commented on Nov 19, 2013:
Submitted by:Ladislav
The benefits of ISO will be:
standard compliance
improved compatibility between date syntax and path syntax
Rebolbot commented on Nov 19, 2013:
Submitted by:Ladislav
Regarding "I like that the slash in a date makes the time a refinement of the date" - understood, but, actually, I do not like this "benefit":
>>type? load moldtopath! [19 Nov 2013 21:01:51]
==date!
My idea has three parts:
(1) use MOLD/ALL
(2) MOLD/ALL of paths that don't begin with a word should put out construction syntax
(3) LOAD should be able to accept construction syntax for paths that do not begin with words
Submitted by: Ladislav
In the example below there is a demonstration of a date! syntax and path! syntax "clash". The question is whether this is intended and whether it is optimal.
This is related to #2090.
I would like to be able to define a path containing a complete date value in some cases.
The last example is probably the worst since it is the hardest to amend.
Imported from: CureCode [ Version: r3 master Type: Wish Platform: All Category: Syntax Reproduce: Always Fixed-in:none ]
Imported from: metaeducation#2089
Comments:
Submitted by: Gregg
If you are saying that you want the following to be equivalent
I'll say -1, because it could lead to unexpected results. i.e., how do I escape it if I happen to have path values that would unintentionally become a date?
Submitted by: Ladislav
"If you are saying that you want the following to be equivalent..." - I am not saying that. I am saying that there is a "syntax clash" that causes problems.
Submitted by: Gregg
Ah, I think I see what you're saying now. You would have to put the date in a paren or something today. Do you have an idea for a cleaner solution?
Submitted by: Ladislav
The ISO date format does not "clash" with path syntax. Supporting ISO 8601 we will be better off in this sense as well. See #2092. Also, it is possible to use paren in path is some cases, which may be a way to circumvent the problem.
Submitted by: Gregg
I like that the slash in a date makes the time a refinement of the date, but it does clash in paths. I hesitate to suggest it, but "@" might be an understandable delimiter. It is non-standard, but reads well as "at" in this context. I also just found that REBOL can load it, thinking it's an email. e.g. 19-Nov-2013@12:30. Not all date forms load that way, and I very much doubt if anyone is using that feature that would complain about their code breaking.
That said, I can live with ISO8601, as I think it would be good to be able to load it in any case. I don't like the T, but the benefits may outweigh my feelings. :-)
Submitted by: Ladislav
The benefits of ISO will be:
Submitted by: Ladislav
Regarding "I like that the slash in a date makes the time a refinement of the date" - understood, but, actually, I do not like this "benefit":
Also, this is not easy to amend. Any idea?
My idea has three parts:
(1) use MOLD/ALL
(2) MOLD/ALL of paths that don't begin with a word should put out construction syntax
(3) LOAD should be able to accept construction syntax for paths that do not begin with words
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: