* [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
@ 2013-10-05 20:59 Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-06 15:29 ` Sami Kerola
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Tommi Kyntola @ 2013-10-05 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: util-linux-ng
I keep trying -w with cal from time to time and I finally decided it's
about time to do something about it. I'm not sure if this is something
you'd be interested in incorporating into util-linux cal, but it's
something I wanted, so here it is. There's gcal of course, but I only
wanted a toothpick not the whole forest.
I added -w|--week for showing week numbers. It defaults to North
American numbering, because cal itself defaults to Sundays being the
first day of the week. With Monday first it uses the ISO-8601 week
numbers.
I didn't worry too much about the implementation being as clean as
possible just yet, but should this be deemed worth a jack, I or anyone
else can take it to any direction.
The three relevant patches are in my github:
https://github.com/Kynde/util-linux.git
https://github.com/Kynde/util-linux/commits
Tommi Kyntola (4):
cal: added two missing tests
cal: added -w|--week for showing week numbers
cal: tests for week number modes added
cal: added more week number tests to cover various special cases
The first that's on top of Karel's tree is a minor test fix for
bigyear and sep1752 which seemed to lack final their last tests.
misc-utils/cal.c | 140 +++-
tests/expected/cal/1mw | 37 ++
tests/expected/cal/3mw | 37 ++
tests/expected/cal/bigyear | 51 ++
tests/expected/cal/bigyearw | 257 ++++++++
tests/expected/cal/colorw | 55 ++
tests/expected/cal/sep1752 | 51 ++
tests/expected/cal/sep1752w | 249 ++++++++
tests/expected/cal/weeknum | 1485 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tests/expected/cal/yearw | 177 ++++++
tests/ts/cal/1mw | 59 ++
tests/ts/cal/3mw | 58 ++
tests/ts/cal/bigyear | 1 +
tests/ts/cal/bigyearw | 96 +++
tests/ts/cal/colorw | 71 +++
tests/ts/cal/sep1752 | 1 +
tests/ts/cal/sep1752w | 96 +++
tests/ts/cal/weeknum | 87 +++
tests/ts/cal/yearw | 58 ++
19 files changed, 3037 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
Please cc me as I'm not on the list.
cheers,
Tommi Kyntola
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-05 20:59 [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal Tommi Kyntola
@ 2013-10-06 15:29 ` Sami Kerola
2013-10-06 17:23 ` Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-09 9:43 ` Karel Zak
2013-10-22 10:32 ` Karel Zak
2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Sami Kerola @ 2013-10-06 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tommi Kyntola; +Cc: util-linux-ng
On 5 October 2013 21:59, Tommi Kyntola <tommi.kyntola@gmail.com> wrote:
> I keep trying -w with cal from time to time and I finally decided it's
> about time to do something about it. I'm not sure if this is something
> you'd be interested in incorporating into util-linux cal, but it's
> something I wanted, so here it is. There's gcal of course, but I only
> wanted a toothpick not the whole forest.
>
> I added -w|--week for showing week numbers. It defaults to North
> American numbering, because cal itself defaults to Sundays being the
> first day of the week. With Monday first it uses the ISO-8601 week
> numbers.
>
> I didn't worry too much about the implementation being as clean as
> possible just yet, but should this be deemed worth a jack, I or anyone
> else can take it to any direction.
>
> The three relevant patches are in my github:
> https://github.com/Kynde/util-linux.git
> https://github.com/Kynde/util-linux/commits
>
> Tommi Kyntola (4):
> cal: added two missing tests
> cal: added -w|--week for showing week numbers
> cal: tests for week number modes added
> cal: added more week number tests to cover various special cases
>
> The first that's on top of Karel's tree is a minor test fix for
> bigyear and sep1752 which seemed to lack final their last tests.
>
> misc-utils/cal.c | 140 +++-
> tests/expected/cal/1mw | 37 ++
> tests/expected/cal/3mw | 37 ++
> tests/expected/cal/bigyear | 51 ++
> tests/expected/cal/bigyearw | 257 ++++++++
> tests/expected/cal/colorw | 55 ++
> tests/expected/cal/sep1752 | 51 ++
> tests/expected/cal/sep1752w | 249 ++++++++
> tests/expected/cal/weeknum | 1485 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tests/expected/cal/yearw | 177 ++++++
> tests/ts/cal/1mw | 59 ++
> tests/ts/cal/3mw | 58 ++
> tests/ts/cal/bigyear | 1 +
> tests/ts/cal/bigyearw | 96 +++
> tests/ts/cal/colorw | 71 +++
> tests/ts/cal/sep1752 | 1 +
> tests/ts/cal/sep1752w | 96 +++
> tests/ts/cal/weeknum | 87 +++
> tests/ts/cal/yearw | 58 ++
> 19 files changed, 3037 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> Please cc me as I'm not on the list.
Hello Tommi,
Thank you for the weekday contribution. Earlier the year I though I'll
make this to work, but you were first.
I had look of your patch set and found out peculiarity. If the first
day of the week is highlighted the week number is calculated wrong.
$ cal -w 6 10 2013
October 2013
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
39 1 2 3 4 5
147 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
41 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
42 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
43 27 28 29 30 31
When day is not highlighted error does not occur.
$ cal --color=never -w 13 10 2013
--
Sami Kerola
http://www.iki.fi/kerolasa/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-06 15:29 ` Sami Kerola
@ 2013-10-06 17:23 ` Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-06 18:38 ` Benno Schulenberg
2013-10-07 3:10 ` Pádraig Brady
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Tommi Kyntola @ 2013-10-06 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kerolasa; +Cc: util-linux-ng
Oh, forgot the today flag. It has to be masked out before passing the
day to week_number().
Good catch and thanks for taking the time to look at it!
I fixed the flaw and redid the commits, this time with additional
changes to the man page, bash-completion etc.
(I fixed some cal related faulty translations from the fi.po while at
it, although I doubt anyone uses those here)
I can split the changes into smaller chunks if appropriate, but I'll
hold that until I get more feedback.
cheers,
Tommi Kyntola
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Sami Kerola <kerolasa@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 5 October 2013 21:59, Tommi Kyntola <tommi.kyntola@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I keep trying -w with cal from time to time and I finally decided it's
>> about time to do something about it. I'm not sure if this is something
>> you'd be interested in incorporating into util-linux cal, but it's
>> something I wanted, so here it is. There's gcal of course, but I only
>> wanted a toothpick not the whole forest.
>>
>> I added -w|--week for showing week numbers. It defaults to North
>> American numbering, because cal itself defaults to Sundays being the
>> first day of the week. With Monday first it uses the ISO-8601 week
>> numbers.
>>
>> I didn't worry too much about the implementation being as clean as
>> possible just yet, but should this be deemed worth a jack, I or anyone
>> else can take it to any direction.
>>
>> The three relevant patches are in my github:
>> https://github.com/Kynde/util-linux.git
>> https://github.com/Kynde/util-linux/commits
>>
>> Tommi Kyntola (4):
>> cal: added two missing tests
>> cal: added -w|--week for showing week numbers
>> cal: tests for week number modes added
>> cal: added more week number tests to cover various special cases
>>
>> The first that's on top of Karel's tree is a minor test fix for
>> bigyear and sep1752 which seemed to lack final their last tests.
>>
>> misc-utils/cal.c | 140 +++-
>> tests/expected/cal/1mw | 37 ++
>> tests/expected/cal/3mw | 37 ++
>> tests/expected/cal/bigyear | 51 ++
>> tests/expected/cal/bigyearw | 257 ++++++++
>> tests/expected/cal/colorw | 55 ++
>> tests/expected/cal/sep1752 | 51 ++
>> tests/expected/cal/sep1752w | 249 ++++++++
>> tests/expected/cal/weeknum | 1485 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> tests/expected/cal/yearw | 177 ++++++
>> tests/ts/cal/1mw | 59 ++
>> tests/ts/cal/3mw | 58 ++
>> tests/ts/cal/bigyear | 1 +
>> tests/ts/cal/bigyearw | 96 +++
>> tests/ts/cal/colorw | 71 +++
>> tests/ts/cal/sep1752 | 1 +
>> tests/ts/cal/sep1752w | 96 +++
>> tests/ts/cal/weeknum | 87 +++
>> tests/ts/cal/yearw | 58 ++
>> 19 files changed, 3037 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>
>> Please cc me as I'm not on the list.
>
> Hello Tommi,
>
> Thank you for the weekday contribution. Earlier the year I though I'll
> make this to work, but you were first.
>
> I had look of your patch set and found out peculiarity. If the first
> day of the week is highlighted the week number is calculated wrong.
>
> $ cal -w 6 10 2013
> October 2013
> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
> 39 1 2 3 4 5
> 147 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
> 41 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
> 42 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
> 43 27 28 29 30 31
>
> When day is not highlighted error does not occur.
>
> $ cal --color=never -w 13 10 2013
>
> --
> Sami Kerola
> http://www.iki.fi/kerolasa/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-06 17:23 ` Tommi Kyntola
@ 2013-10-06 18:38 ` Benno Schulenberg
2013-10-07 3:10 ` Pádraig Brady
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Benno Schulenberg @ 2013-10-06 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tommi Kyntola; +Cc: kerolasa, util-linux-ng
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013, at 19:23, Tommi Kyntola wrote:
> (I fixed some cal related faulty translations from the fi.po while at
> it, although I doubt anyone uses those here)
Most of the things you changed were to "fuzzy" messages, which don't
get used because they were automatically filled in by msgmerge, so they
were not really faulty (in the sense that the translator made a mistake).
I've forwarded your changes to the Finnish transator; with a little luck
the PO file at the translation project will get updated.
One tiny thing: please wrap lines in the man page at around column 70.
Regards,
Benno
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-06 17:23 ` Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-06 18:38 ` Benno Schulenberg
@ 2013-10-07 3:10 ` Pádraig Brady
2013-10-07 11:39 ` Tommi Kyntola
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Pádraig Brady @ 2013-10-07 3:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tommi Kyntola; +Cc: kerolasa, util-linux-ng
Looks good.
I don't suppose it would be useful to allow
specifying a week number as input, like:
cal --week=44
cheers,
Pádraig.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-07 3:10 ` Pádraig Brady
@ 2013-10-07 11:39 ` Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-07 17:06 ` Pádraig Brady
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Tommi Kyntola @ 2013-10-07 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pádraig Brady; +Cc: Sami Kerola, util-linux-ng
Why not. I wasn't sure what exactly should be done with 52 when many
years have days belonging to two different 52 weeks, but I came up
with a spec that says it points to the week that starts during the
relevant year.
A patch in guthub:
https://github.com/Kynde/util-linux/commit/3a53abddc14f46eccb4264668b24875054f5ba62
cheers,
Tommi Kyntola
---
commit 3a53abddc14f46eccb4264668b24875054f5ba62
Author: Tommi Kyntola <kynde@iki.fi>
Date: Mon Oct 7 14:32:23 2013 +0300
cal: added argument option for -w|--week to display that week
Because many years have two sections of week 52 or 53, the week that
this argument points to is the one that starts during that year (when availa
The week number in argument is also highlighted in addition to possibly visi
current/defined date highlighting.
Signed-off-by: Tommi Kyntola <kynde@iki.fi>
misc-utils/cal.1 | 2 +-
misc-utils/cal.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
tests/expected/cal/weekarg | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tests/ts/cal/weekarg | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 358 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-07 11:39 ` Tommi Kyntola
@ 2013-10-07 17:06 ` Pádraig Brady
2013-10-07 17:59 ` Tommi Kyntola
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Pádraig Brady @ 2013-10-07 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tommi Kyntola; +Cc: Sami Kerola, util-linux-ng
On 10/07/2013 12:39 PM, Tommi Kyntola wrote:
> Why not. I wasn't sure what exactly should be done with 52 when many
> years have days belonging to two different 52 weeks, but I came up
> with a spec that says it points to the week that starts during the
> relevant year.
>
> A patch in guthub:
> https://github.com/Kynde/util-linux/commit/3a53abddc14f46eccb4264668b24875054f5ba62
It's generally best to avoid optional args on short args,
as in this case -w3 is ambiguous and -wj is problematic.
So I'd instead support an interface like -w,--week[=NUM]
thanks,
Pádraig.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-07 17:06 ` Pádraig Brady
@ 2013-10-07 17:59 ` Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-07 23:33 ` Pádraig Brady
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Tommi Kyntola @ 2013-10-07 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pádraig Brady; +Cc: Sami Kerola, util-linux-ng
> It's generally best to avoid optional args on short args,
> as in this case -w3 is ambiguous and -wj is problematic.
> So I'd instead support an interface like -w,--week[=NUM]
Agreed. I dropped the :: from the short arg.
cheers,
Tommi Kyntola
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-07 17:59 ` Tommi Kyntola
@ 2013-10-07 23:33 ` Pádraig Brady
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Pádraig Brady @ 2013-10-07 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tommi Kyntola; +Cc: Sami Kerola, util-linux-ng
On 10/07/2013 06:59 PM, Tommi Kyntola wrote:
>> It's generally best to avoid optional args on short args,
>> as in this case -w3 is ambiguous and -wj is problematic.
>> So I'd instead support an interface like -w,--week[=NUM]
>
> Agreed. I dropped the :: from the short arg.
lgtm
thanks,
Pádraig.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-05 20:59 [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-06 15:29 ` Sami Kerola
@ 2013-10-09 9:43 ` Karel Zak
2013-10-22 10:32 ` Karel Zak
2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Karel Zak @ 2013-10-09 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tommi Kyntola; +Cc: util-linux-ng
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:59:54PM +0300, Tommi Kyntola wrote:
> I added -w|--week for showing week numbers.
Note that I'm going to merge the patches after v2.24. Now it's too late.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-05 20:59 [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-06 15:29 ` Sami Kerola
2013-10-09 9:43 ` Karel Zak
@ 2013-10-22 10:32 ` Karel Zak
2013-10-22 15:23 ` Sami Kerola
2013-10-23 6:56 ` Tommi Kyntola
2 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Karel Zak @ 2013-10-22 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tommi Kyntola; +Cc: util-linux-ng
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:59:54PM +0300, Tommi Kyntola wrote:
> I keep trying -w with cal from time to time and I finally decided it's
> about time to do something about it. I'm not sure if this is something
> you'd be interested in incorporating into util-linux cal, but it's
> something I wanted, so here it is. There's gcal of course, but I only
> wanted a toothpick not the whole forest.
Applied, thanks.
Comments:
* please, next time always use space around operators and after
commas, things like
week_number(xd&~TODAY_FLAG,month+which_cal+1,year,wflag);
are horrible.
* I don't understand this feature:
/* In some years (e.g. 2010 in ISO mode) it's possible to
* have a remnant of week 53 starting the year yet the year
* in question ends during 52, in this case we're assuming
* that early remnant is being referred to if 53 is given
* as argument. */
For example:
$ LANG=de_DE.UTF8 ./cal --week=53 2009
Dezember 2009
Mo Di Mi Do Fr Sa So
49 1 2 3 4 5 6
50 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
51 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
52 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
53 28 29 30 31
it's correct, let's try the next year:
$ LANG=de_DE.UTF8 ./cal --week=53 2010
Januar 2010
Mo Di Mi Do Fr Sa So
53 1 2 3
1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
3 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
oh... week 53 of the year 2010 in January 2010, but week 52 is December:
$ LANG=de_DE.UTF8 ./cal --week=52 2010
Dezember 2010
Mo Di Mi Do Fr Sa So
48 1 2 3 4 5
49 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
50 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
51 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
52 27 28 29 30 31
It seems pretty strange to interpret --week=53 2010 as last week
of the year 2009. I think it would be more intuitive to interpret
cal --week=53 2010
as invalid week number (or for another years expect this week after
week 52).
Note that I'm talking about command line --week=53 interpretations, the
week numbers in the output are correct of course.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-22 10:32 ` Karel Zak
@ 2013-10-22 15:23 ` Sami Kerola
2013-10-22 15:55 ` Karel Zak
2013-10-23 6:56 ` Tommi Kyntola
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Sami Kerola @ 2013-10-22 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Karel Zak; +Cc: Tommi Kyntola, util-linux-ng
On 22 October 2013 11:32, Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:59:54PM +0300, Tommi Kyntola wrote:
>> I keep trying -w with cal from time to time and I finally decided it's
>> about time to do something about it. I'm not sure if this is something
>> you'd be interested in incorporating into util-linux cal, but it's
>> something I wanted, so here it is. There's gcal of course, but I only
>> wanted a toothpick not the whole forest.
>
> Applied, thanks.
FYI
I started think, and play with the cal code, in order to make the source a
little bit more maintainable. My plan is to add run time configuration
and parameters structures. With bit of luck changing data structures
allows less strange functions.
Broken peak preview:
https://github.com/kerolasa/lelux-utiliteetit/tree/cal-ng
--
Sami Kerola
http://www.iki.fi/kerolasa/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-22 15:23 ` Sami Kerola
@ 2013-10-22 15:55 ` Karel Zak
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Karel Zak @ 2013-10-22 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kerolasa; +Cc: Tommi Kyntola, util-linux-ng
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 04:23:22PM +0100, Sami Kerola wrote:
> On 22 October 2013 11:32, Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:59:54PM +0300, Tommi Kyntola wrote:
> >> I keep trying -w with cal from time to time and I finally decided it's
> >> about time to do something about it. I'm not sure if this is something
> >> you'd be interested in incorporating into util-linux cal, but it's
> >> something I wanted, so here it is. There's gcal of course, but I only
> >> wanted a toothpick not the whole forest.
> >
> > Applied, thanks.
>
> FYI
>
> I started think, and play with the cal code, in order to make the source a
> little bit more maintainable. My plan is to add run time configuration
> and parameters structures. With bit of luck changing data structures
> allows less strange functions.
That's also my wish. The current source is based on code rather data
structures. That's alway bad thing, the result is mess of for/if()
machinery.
It would be nice to describe the problem by structs and split code
to two sets of the functions
1/ generate calendar(s),
2/ print calendar.
Something like:
struct cal_week {
int week_number;
int days[7];
...
};
struct cal_month {
struct cal_week weeks[5];
...
}
struct cal_control {
int week_start;
...
struct cal_month cals[12];
}
cal_new_month();
cal_add_month();
cal_get_month();
cal_month_get_week();
...
cal_print_calendar()
... or better.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal
2013-10-22 10:32 ` Karel Zak
2013-10-22 15:23 ` Sami Kerola
@ 2013-10-23 6:56 ` Tommi Kyntola
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Tommi Kyntola @ 2013-10-23 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Karel Zak; +Cc: util-linux-ng
On 10/22/13 13:32, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:59:54PM +0300, Tommi Kyntola wrote:
>> I keep trying -w with cal from time to time and I finally decided it's
>> about time to do something about it. I'm not sure if this is something
>> you'd be interested in incorporating into util-linux cal, but it's
>> something I wanted, so here it is. There's gcal of course, but I only
>> wanted a toothpick not the whole forest.
>
> Applied, thanks.
>
> Comments:
>
> * please, next time always use space around operators and after
> commas, things like
>
> week_number(xd&~TODAY_FLAG,month+which_cal+1,year,wflag);
>
> are horrible.
Oh, sorry, I thought we might have gone one more iteration cleaning it up
a bit once you were done with the earlier release.
Not that code cleanliness was a design goal at any point and the code seemed
a little stale to begin with. Frankly, I was expecting responses more along
the lines of "that's hardly needed".
Next time, I'll keep it nice even before the RFC.
> * I don't understand this feature:
>
> /* In some years (e.g. 2010 in ISO mode) it's possible to
> * have a remnant of week 53 starting the year yet the year
> * in question ends during 52, in this case we're assuming
> * that early remnant is being referred to if 53 is given
> * as argument. */
>
> For example:
>
> $ LANG=de_DE.UTF8 ./cal --week=53 2009
> Dezember 2009
> Mo Di Mi Do Fr Sa So
> 49 1 2 3 4 5 6
> 50 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
> 51 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
> 52 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
> 53 28 29 30 31
>
> it's correct, let's try the next year:
>
> $ LANG=de_DE.UTF8 ./cal --week=53 2010
> Januar 2010
> Mo Di Mi Do Fr Sa So
> 53 1 2 3
> 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
> 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
> 3 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
> 4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
>
> oh... week 53 of the year 2010 in January 2010, but week 52 is December:
>
> $ LANG=de_DE.UTF8 ./cal --week=52 2010
> Dezember 2010
> Mo Di Mi Do Fr Sa So
> 48 1 2 3 4 5
> 49 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
> 50 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
> 51 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
> 52 27 28 29 30 31
>
>
> It seems pretty strange to interpret --week=53 2010 as last week
> of the year 2009. I think it would be more intuitive to interpret
>
> cal --week=53 2010
>
> as invalid week number (or for another years expect this week after
> week 52).
>
> Note that I'm talking about command line --week=53 interpretations, the
> week numbers in the output are correct of course.
That was a tricky one. It did initially fail with invalid argument,
as it does with years that don't have that remnant in January (e.g. 2006),
but to me it seemed stranger to fail with --week=53 when it still shows up
in -y output. These two only differ in highlighting:
cal -my --week 2010
cal -my --week=53 2010
But I certainly understand your point and I think you're right, it probably
makes more sense to follow the numbering definitions and make it only show
up weeks with Thursdays in it (in ISO mode).
One can drop the extra check (when month > 12) and errx straight up to make it
error with 53 when the only part of 53 with present is in January.
cheers,
Tommi Kyntola
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-10-23 6:56 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-10-05 20:59 [RFC/PATCH] week numbers for cal Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-06 15:29 ` Sami Kerola
2013-10-06 17:23 ` Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-06 18:38 ` Benno Schulenberg
2013-10-07 3:10 ` Pádraig Brady
2013-10-07 11:39 ` Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-07 17:06 ` Pádraig Brady
2013-10-07 17:59 ` Tommi Kyntola
2013-10-07 23:33 ` Pádraig Brady
2013-10-09 9:43 ` Karel Zak
2013-10-22 10:32 ` Karel Zak
2013-10-22 15:23 ` Sami Kerola
2013-10-22 15:55 ` Karel Zak
2013-10-23 6:56 ` Tommi Kyntola
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.