Bug #33013 [Com]: strtotime - 'next month' doesn't work.

Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=33013&edit=1 ID: 33013 Comment by: luket at ukvoipnet dot com Reported by: nick at netdupe dot com Summary: strtotime - 'next month' doesn't work. Status: Closed Type: Bug Package: Date/time related Operating System: Mac OS X 10.4 PHP Version: 5.0.4 Block user comment: N New Comment: If you are trying to get the month & year of next/previous month try uisng the following function: mktime(0, 0, 0, date("m")+1, 1, date("Y")); using date("m")+1, +2, -1 etc.. as needed. You can then place this into a date function as the unix timestamp argument. Previous Comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2005-05-20 13:15:47] derick@php.net As we can't remove it because of BC, "next" will now means "1" from now on. "second" will not work in PHP 4.3 (unless I port back my date time stuff) and in PHP 5.0 it won't work at all. PHP 5.1 will support "second second" (+2 seconds) and the like. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2005-05-20 08:05:53] rasmus@php.net I don't think not having a "second" means that "next" should take its place when it doesn't match the common usage of the word. The whole point of having these terms at all is to make it easier to use. If we are going to go to the trouble of making "next month" work, then it should work the way people expect. Otherwise we should get rid of these terms completely and just go with the more explicit "+1 month" syntax instead. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2005-05-19 21:04:12] derick@php.net Actually, the new parser that I wrote can handle this just fine... so, shall we make next 2 or 1 (in PHP 5.1)? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2005-05-19 21:01:04] derick@php.net I also know the rationale - without "next" linking to 2, there would be no way to represent "2" as "second" already means something else (the time unit). So I think we should not change it back to "1". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2005-05-16 13:45:56] mgf@php.net The change was due to bug report http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=18655. It looks like the GNU spec has changed, since at that time we all agreed it said "next" was equivalent to 2 -- I even quoted the relevant section in my contribution to the discussion. It's more intuitive if "next" is equivalent to 1, so I guess it would be reasonable to change back, just as long as the various changes are sufficiently documented! ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=33013 -- Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=33013&edit=1