Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] date.c: skip fractional second part of ISO-8601

[Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email>]

Junio is correct.
On 24/04/2020 01:46, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Danh Doan <congdanhqx@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2020-04-23 21:41:49+0100, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> wrote:
>>> On 23/04/2020 20:28, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> Danh Doan <congdanhqx@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Would is_hhmmss() and is_yyyymmdd() be more obvious abbreviations for
>>> most readers?
>>>
>>> Now that I type them, they do feel that bit too long... , as naming is
>>> hard, maybe stick with the yms and hms, though I do keep wanting to type
>>> ytd for the former..
>> Not sure if I interpret your opinion correctly,
>> Did you mean s/yms/ymd/ and s/ytd/ymd/?
>>
>> Even that, I couldn't grasp the meaning of the last phase?
> Here is how I understood it.
>
> Philip thinks, and I admit I have to agree with, that HMS would not
> be understood as hour-minute-seconds by most people, and YMD would
> not be as yearh-month-day, either.
>
> His "yms" in "stick with the yms and hms" is a typo of "ymd".  He is
> saying that even though YYMMDD and HHMMSS would look a lot more
> natural, it is too long to type so YMD and HMS may not be so
> terrible a compromise.
>
> With the "ytd" in the last one, he is saying that another downside
> of saying "ymd" (other than that it is not how we usually spell
> year-month-date), even though "ymd" might be an acceptable
> compromise, is that it is too easy to get confused with year-to-date
> that is commonly abbreviated as "YTD".
True.
--
Philip