Re: Time.utc! and Time.localtime!

Wouldn't it be okay to change it in 1.9 so that it will eventually be
rolled into 2.0?

On 12/15/05, [e-mail] <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > In message "Re: Time.utc! and Time.localtime!"
> >    on Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:16:16 +0900, Kev Jackson <[e-mail]> writes:
> >
> > |>Hmm, usually I don't respond to mails saying "un-rubyish" or "POLS",
> > |>but this time I agree with that "utc" and "getutc" combination is more
> > |>un-rubyish than "utc" and "utc!".  But I'm not sure if we can fix it
> > |>for compatibility reason.
> >
> > |Could you not keep the old methods for bwc and add new more 'ruby-ish'
> > |methods as well?  (or aliases if it's in ruby code rather than in C)
> > |
> > |Not looked deeply into this at all, but I would have thought that adding
> > |a method that simply refers back to the original method, but is more
> > |nicely named shouldn't be too hard
> >
> > Adding two new methods is OK.  Even removing methods is OK too.  But
> > changing "utc" behavior like this is problematic, since the
> > interpreter cannot tell which "utc" programmers want to use.
>
>    class Time
>      alias_method "__utc__", "utc"
>      alias_method "utc!", "__utc__"
>      def utc *a, &b
>        warn "#utc method will change - use #utc! for self modifying behaviour!"
>        __utc__ *a, &b
>      end
>    end
>
> an some time might be enough to make the transition.
>
> regards.
>
> -a
> --
> ===============================================================================
> | ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
> | all happiness comes from the desire for others to be happy.  all misery
> | comes from the desire for oneself to be happy.
> | -- bodhicaryavatara
> ===============================================================================
>
>
>


--
Daniel Hobe <[e-mail]>
After the darkness of her speech; I go bewildered in a mist of prophecies.