You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I accidentally stumbled across a StackOverflow article where you recommend temporenc and it immediately caught my attention as I generally like to use "normalized" date formats (instead of obscure epoch-based formats) and I am currently contemplating if I want to go with temporenc (I'm quite positive, though).
I immediately found that I, and probably everybody else, need algorithms for converting to and from the following common formats: Windows 64-bit time stamps, Unix 32-bit time stamps, ISO this-and-that long string representations, etc.
It would be a great help for everybody who contemplate using your new format, I think, if you could research and provide sample code for converting forth and back between the most commonly used formats.
You may argue that this is not your responsibility, which I'd sort of agree with, but I think it could help the adoption rate of your new format quite a bit, if you (or somebody else) supplied the above.
I found a couple of links of relevance to this request:
Hi,
I accidentally stumbled across a StackOverflow article where you recommend temporenc and it immediately caught my attention as I generally like to use "normalized" date formats (instead of obscure epoch-based formats) and I am currently contemplating if I want to go with temporenc (I'm quite positive, though).
I immediately found that I, and probably everybody else, need algorithms for converting to and from the following common formats: Windows 64-bit time stamps, Unix 32-bit time stamps, ISO this-and-that long string representations, etc.
It would be a great help for everybody who contemplate using your new format, I think, if you could research and provide sample code for converting forth and back between the most commonly used formats.
You may argue that this is not your responsibility, which I'd sort of agree with, but I think it could help the adoption rate of your new format quite a bit, if you (or somebody else) supplied the above.
I found a couple of links of relevance to this request:
Cheers,
Archfrog
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: