Re: rfc2616 datetime format?

On Sun, October 3, 2010 6:27 pm, Stas Malyshev wrote: >> It looks like a sub optimal choice to have used string constants >> instead of integer. However it could be still possible to define new >> constants as numeric. It is then possible to do whatever needs to be >> done as post or pre ops for the respective constants. > > I'm not sure what integers have to do with it? The constants define > date > formats that are in common use, RFC2616 is one of the commonest on the > web and we don't have a constant for it... I'm not sure that using 1 for RFC822, 2 for RFC884, ... would have been much better, really... You'd still have to look up the string format, and this GMT one would still be an oddball requiring pre-processing to convert to GMT, as I understand it. Perhaps a whole new "pool" of constants for gmdate() formatting??? GMT_RFC_2616, for example??? There are probably others in the same boat, yes? Let the record show that I am painfully aware of my ignorance relative to Derick with regards to Date Time matters. :-) -- brain cancer update: http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor Donate: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FS9NLTNEEKWBE