[ic] time tag with adjust in February bug?
paul at gishnetwork.com
Mon Apr 1 23:00:28 UTC 2013
> users-bounces at icdevgroup.org] On Behalf Of Peter
> On 04/02/2013 05:13 AM, Mike Heins wrote:
> > Quoting Paul Jordan (paul at gishnetwork.com):
> >> B) On January 31st, I ask you to meet me here one month from today,
> >> likewise, you don't add any amount of days, but rather meet them at
> >> the end of February.
> Actually, as a human I would probably just ask you to clarify.
> > That is your definition. It's fine, but you are basing it on
> > assumptions which are not universal.
> I agree, but that said, it does seem to be the most reasonable definition
> I've heard for that scenario, and certainly more reasonable than what the
> code currently comes up with. I think we should change the behavior of
> code to do this instead of what is currently in place, and we should
> it as such.
This is my point. If one is choosing a "fuzzy human term" such a "Month"
(instead of 29||30||31 days) they are accepting the baggage of the human
race and acknowledging the tons of "fuzzy linkages" we make when dealing
with others every day.
The adjust parameter of [time] accepting Months is a tool for humans, and we
shouldn't lose a more human tool just because we are able to think of other
ways someone may want the result.
We are the ones complicating it trying to stuff it into precision math terms
when it was never intended to be.
Month is a human thing, it should result in the *most human* conclusion. I
don't for one second think there are other valid conclusions - just that
they are (much) less likely than what I have described.
More information about the interchange-users