Re: encode-time vs decode-time

[Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>]

Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Was this inspection done on Emacs' own code, or also outside Emacs?
>
> Lars didn't say. I assume he meant Emacs's own code.

Yup.

> One alternative would be to leave decode-time's API unchanged from
> Emacs 26 and put the new functionality into a new function, say
> "time-calendrical". While we're at it, we could call the data
> structure that the new function returns a "calendrical timestamp"
> instead of a "decoded timestamp", and rename the recently-added
> functions make-decoded-time, decoded-time-hour, decoded-time-year
> etc. to make-calendrical-time, calendrical-hour, calendrical-year,
> etc.

I agree; calling these things encoded/decoded time isn't very clear
terminology.  "calendrical" is a mouthful, though.  And "calendar" would
imply that it belongs in the calendar package, perhaps...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no