AltME: Ren - Data Exchange Format


Agreed, but more limiting, in this case, doesn't mean a smaller spec.
i.e., having to specify sexagesimal rules.
What about leap seconds (23:59:60)?
Again, it could be extended later.
I wouldn't allow it either. Only stricly valid time values.
I vote for later. When someone is going to use Ren for running an atomclock, we can extend the specs ;)
I think it would be useful to allow milliseconds, and possibly microseconds. The use cases I see are sharing profiling information, debugging information and logs (of high volume systems) via REN.
Hours should be allowed to be more than 23, right? It's not just for clock time values, but also for how much time until some event.
Sure I work 40 hours a week, 180 in 4 weeks about 190 a month.. Our project is 200 hours estimated. Etcetera and so on.
that should be 160 in 4 weeks of course, but I declare 180 for sure. No 620 minimal ;-)
Any fractional decimal amount should be allowed for seconds.
integer : [00-59] : [00-59 opt frac]
I think my current spec, which uses [2 digit] for hours and minutes, was modeled on IETF RFCs where they do the same thing. REBOL's behavior is different for time values that are part of a date, than for pure time! values. It throws an error on date! values with non-sexagesimal clock time values (i.e. > 23:59:59). Assigning a time! to a date/time does a modulo 24:0:0 on it.
So we effectively have time! and time-of-day!.
You could sat duration! and time!
Fraction for seconds is good to be compatible with SQL datetime values (MS SQL Server at least)
Duration! is also a good idea. If we don't use it, then I vote for HH bigger than 24.
But if duration! is also a valid time!, how do you know which it is?
1) We are representing data
2) We have to keep the rules simple
Q. Should Ren enforce rules about time!, or just define what a time! value looks like?
There is also the question of attacks with crazy values. If we allow things like mixed signs, does it make implementations easier or harder to get right? Same for large values (overflow) if we don't restrict it to sexagesimal.
I never thought time! would raise so many questions.

One way to distinguish between a time! and a duration would be that a time would need a timezone.
03:00 could be considered ambiguous as a time without a timezone. A duration is indpendent of timezone.
The counter argument would be a use case, where you wish to distrubute a time of day independent of timezone e.g the time of a nightly back up being 02:00

Last message posted 208 weeks ago.