Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.std.c > #6473

Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent

Path csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups comp.std.c
Subject Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent
Date Sun, 29 Jan 2023 10:33:59 -0800
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Lines 45
Message-ID <867cx5gpgo.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References <875yf5ksn9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <861qocrk5b.fsf@linuxsc.com> <IeEsL.27470$cKvc.4521@fx42.iad>
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8ce3893f3eb724e7abcf14dabf224dec"; logging-data="3013316"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Uv69c5yDEZcWWtlzMVr6vI2oYqbpQjSo="
User-Agent Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock sha1:j3pZki/O+N7IrVPOIqNU31jLwDg= sha1:E6Zc/OaDppL48w2vAsv/0HhpPj4=
Xref csiph.com comp.std.c:6473

Show key headers only | View raw


Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:

> On 1/2/23 11:11 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> In the latest C23 draft:
>>>      https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3047.pdf
>>> the descriptions of the __DATE__ and __TIME__ macros refer to the
>>> asctime() function.
>>>
>>> That's not new.  What's new is that asctime() is deprecated.
>>>
>>> Referring to a deprecated function isn't really a problem, but if
>>> asctime() is actually removed in a future standard the descriptions of
>>> __DATE__ and __TIME__ will need to be updated.
>>>
>>> It would also be nice to have a new macro that expands to the current
>>> date in the form "YYYY-MM-DD".  I do not suggest changing the behavior
>>> of __DATE__, but perhaps something like __ISODATE__ could be added.
>>> Question:  If this is done, should __DATE__ be deprecated?
>>
>> It seems pointless to add __ISODATE__ if __DATE__ is retained, and
>> worse than pointless to add __ISODATE__ and then remove __DATE__.
>
> Why?  What is wrong with having macros to get a value in different
> formats.  Different applications may well want either one.

To my way of thinking, the symbol __DATE__ is defined in an ISO
document, so it already qualifies as an ISO date.  To have
another symbol named __ISODATE__ is redundant if it means the
same thing as __DATE__, or confusing if it means something
different.  If it's important to have a symbol for a different
format defined in some other ISO standard, the symbol name should
include some indication of where the format comes from, in a
similar manner to __STDC_IEC_559__, for example.

> Almost all my programs currently use __DATE__ (and __TIME__) to embed
> build information into the program.  I could see applications where
> having the ISO formatted date would be useful, as it has some very
> useful properties (like sortability)

I'm okay with having another date format.  I just don't think the
symbol that gives it should be named __ISODATE__, because that's
confusing.

Back to comp.std.c | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

C23: asctime is obsolescent Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 18:12 -0800
  Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-01-02 08:11 -0800
    Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-01-02 12:11 -0500
      Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-01-29 10:33 -0800
        Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 16:49 -0800
          Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2023-01-30 23:23 +0000
          Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 10:11 -0700
            Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 15:04 -0700
              Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-13 15:26 -0700
                Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 16:47 -0700
                Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com.invalid> - 2023-08-17 21:18 +0200
                Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 13:14 -0700
                Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com.invalid> - 2023-08-18 01:26 +0200
                Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 17:42 +0100
                Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-29 02:37 -0700
    Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 16:47 -0800
      Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-03 09:40 +0100
      Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Pete Forman <petef4+usenet@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 15:15 +0000
        Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 10:35 -0800
        Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-01-04 18:22 +0200
          Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-04 15:04 -0500
      Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-01-29 10:43 -0800
  Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-01-02 08:20 -0800
  Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-20 17:29 +0000
    Re: C23: asctime is obsolescent Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 15:20 -0700

csiph-web