On 7/15/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/15/2006 1:37 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > > On 7/15/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 7/15/2006 1:01 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > >>> On 7/14/06, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> On 7/14/2006 3:38 PM, Sebastian Luque wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> One of the big decisions when writing code is how to handle dates and > >>>>> times. Gabor Grothendieck provided an excellent overview of the issue > >>>>> in > >>>>> his R News 4/1 (2004) article, and many users and developers are > >>>>> probably > >>>>> using it as a guide. The proposed guideline is to use the simplest > >>>>> class > >>>>> required; as Gabor put it "use Date if possible, otherwise use chron, > >>>>> and > >>>>> otherwise use POSIX". > >>>>> > >>>>> This seems to me a very efficient strategy, judging from my own > >>>>> experiences and those of others users. All but the simplest > >>>>> calculations > >>>>> with POSIX objects demand great care, due to time zone and and daylight > >>>>> savings considerations. Therefore, I've always chosen chron for > >>>>> relatively complex projects, where I don't need to deal with time zones > >>>>> or > >>>>> daylight savings problems. The ease with which objects can be switched > >>>>> from numeric to chron representations is a major advantage IMHO¹. > >>>>> > >>>>> If Gabor's recommendations are to be followed, wouldn't it make sense to > >>>>> include chron in base R? Given that flexibility for handling time > >>>>> variables is so fundamental, the addition of chron to base R would > >>>>> provide > >>>>> users everything they need to work with time, without the need to rely > >>>>> on > >>>>> an external package. What do others think? > >>>> Putting something into base R essentially means that it is to be taken > >>>> over by R core. I think chron is being adequately maintained now (the R > >>>> maintainer is already a member of R core), so I don't see a need for > >>>> that. > >>>> > >>>> I don't see a problem having a package on CRAN. If it's a good package > >>>> and people realize that it's good, and it remains available for others > >>>> to use, then what problem is being solved? > >>> I think the problem is that there is nothing to signal its importance. > >>> Perhaps > >>> chron should be added to the "recommended" package list. > >> I think that would be preferable to making it a base package, but it's > >> not the only way to publicize it. Why not add something to the Wiki to > >> compare the various possibilities for storing dates and times? > > > > As a recommended package it would be included in all binary releases > > ensuring access without a separate install and would provide more > > official endorsement. > > Yes, but that wasn't my question. A Wiki entry on dates and times would > be useful whether chron is a recommended package or not. Why don't you > write one based on your R News article, or at least write what you like > about chron? The nice thing about wikis is that if you write anything > inaccurate, someone else will come along and correct you; if you miss > something, someone will add it. > > Duncan Murdoch >
I think the R News article already sums up any knowledge I have on the subject. If anyone else has anything to add perhaps they could put that in the wiki. ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
