----- Original Message -----
> > Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> [...]
>
> 3. leave sleeping dogs lie ... the problem is a corner case involving
> the semantics for -S (or -T) "<someday>" when today is <someday>, e.g.
> thursday as I type. I doubt anyone has used this, and even if they have
> I'd argue they should not be surprised by the semantics of <someday>
> being the "next <someday>" (in this one case), especially given the
> totally confusing semantics of "first <someday>" and "next <someday>"
> that are implemented in date(1) and copied in libpcp ... not to mention
> the irrelevance of all of this for non-English speakers!
>
> I vote for 3.
>
> If we agree, I'd split qa/752 into a passing part and a retired part
> that captures the failure scenario with a big explanation at in the both
> qa tests to explain what has happened and why.
>
> Opinions?
Sounds fine to me.
We could also comment out the "NEXT" keyword in the libpcp code, so people
cannot hit the bug? Not sure its worth it though just for the corner case.
Stan, any idea why SECOND is commented out already, below? seems a bit odd.
diff --git a/src/libpcp/src/getdate.y b/src/libpcp/src/getdate.y
index cc72571..7bde338 100644
--- a/src/libpcp/src/getdate.y
+++ b/src/libpcp/src/getdate.y
@@ -622,7 +622,7 @@ static table const relative_time_table[] =
{ "NOW", tDAY_UNIT, 0 },
{ "LAST", tORDINAL, -1 },
{ "THIS", tORDINAL, 0 },
- { "NEXT", tORDINAL, 1 },
+/*{ "NEXT", tORDINAL, 1 },*/
{ "FIRST", tORDINAL, 1 },
/*{ "SECOND", tORDINAL, 2 }, */
{ "THIRD", tORDINAL, 3 },
cheers.
--
Nathan
|