Topic: Date Format (1 of 12), Read 35 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Ian Binnie
Date: Monday, October 01, 2007 08:02 AM

Could future releases of vedit include support for ISO-8601 date formats. This is used in rfc3339.

I use this format often, but have had to write my own conversion macros. It would be much easier if supported by the inbuilt functions.

I tried to set it as my system default, but Windows makes it hard for anyone who bucks the local practice, and Excel refuses to work with my banking data.

 


Topic: Date Format (2 of 12), Read 23 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Pauli Lindgren
Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 05:18 AM

On 10/1/2007 8:02:38 AM, Ian Binnie wrote:
>Could future releases of vedit include support for ISO-8601
>date formats. This is used in rfc3339.

Do you mean date format such as 2007-10-02?

You get this format by selecting the following in Config -> Misc:
Date format: 3
Date separator: 45

Date format 0 (Locale) seems not work. At least it does not give the same format as what Excel uses.

--
Pauli

 


Topic: Date Format (3 of 12), Read 23 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Ian Binnie
Date: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 09:08 AM

On 10/2/2007 5:18:14 AM, Pauli Lindgren wrote:
>On 10/1/2007 8:02:38 AM, Ian Binnie
>wrote:
>>Could future releases of vedit include support for ISO-8601
>>date formats. This is used in rfc3339.
>
>Do you mean date format such as
>2007-10-02?
>
>You get this format by selecting the
>following in Config -> Misc:
>Date format: 3
>Date separator: 45

This inserts current date, but I was referring to operations on dates using Num_Eval_Date & Num_Ins_Date

 


Topic: Date Format (4 of 12), Read 29 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Pauli Lindgren
Date: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 08:32 AM

On 10/2/2007 9:08:24 AM, Ian Binnie wrote:
>On 10/2/2007 5:18:14 AM, Pauli Lindgren
>>
>>You get this format by selecting the
>>following in Config -> Misc:
>>Date format: 3
>>Date separator: 45
>
>This inserts current date, but I was
>referring to operations on dates using
>Num_Eval_Date & Num_Ins_Date

Num_Ins_Date() does work correctly if you set the above configuration settings.

Or, you can use command like this:
Num_Ins_Date(#1,REVERSE+VALUE,'-')

The "REVERSE" option is not mentioned in Help, but it does work. (So Help needs to be updated.)

However, Num_Eval_Date() seems not have these options.

By the way, a command to get today's date as numeric value would be useful in date calculations. For example:
Ins_Text("Yesterday it was ")
Num_Ins_Date(Today()-1)


--
Pauli

 


Topic: Re: Date Format (5 of 12), Read 32 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Christian Ziemski
Date: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:51 AM

On 03.10.2007 14:33 vedit-suggest Listmanager wrote:
> From: "Pauli Lindgren"
>
> Or, you can use command like this:
> Num_Ins_Date(#1,REVERSE+VALUE,'-')
>
> The "REVERSE" option is not mentioned in Help, but it does work. (So Help needs to be updated.)

At least REVERSE is mentioned in the help of the Date() command.

> However, Num_Eval_Date() seems not have these options.

Num_Eval_Date() doesn't need all of those options because it is able to
evaluate
- 02.10.2007
- 02/10/2007
- 02-10-2007
as month/day/year without any VALUE option and
as day/month/year with the BEGIN option.

And yes, unfortunately Num_Eval_Date() doesn't have the REVERSE option
for yyyy-mm-dd.

> By the way, a command to get today's date as numeric value would be
useful in date calculations.
> For example:
> Ins_Text("Yesterday it was ")
> Num_Ins_Date(Today()-1)

And/or it would be nice to have Num_Eval_Date() being able to evaluate
dates out of Text-Registers.
So one can fill any date into a register and then get the result, e.g.:

Reg_Set(104, "12/25/2006")
#103=Num_Eval_Date(@104)

or for today

Out_Reg(104) Date() Out_Reg(CLEAR)
#103=Num_Eval_Date(@104)


Christian

 


Topic: Re: Date Format (6 of 12), Read 32 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Ian Binnie
Date: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 07:34 PM

On 10/3/2007 10:51:14 AM, Christian Ziemski wrote:
>On 03.10.2007 14:33 vedit-suggest
>Listmanager wrote:
>> From: "Pauli Lindgren"
>>
>> Or, you can use command like this:
>> Num_Ins_Date(#1,REVERSE+VALUE,'-')
>>
>> The "REVERSE" option is not mentioned in Help, but it does work. (So Help needs to be updated.)

Pauli, Thanks - this will help.

>And yes, unfortunately Num_Eval_Date()
>doesn't have the REVERSE option
>for yyyy-mm-dd.

This is the main reason I haven't changed my default to yyyy-mm-dd, because there is no point in inserting dates you can't then convert.

>And/or it would be nice to have
>Num_Eval_Date() being able to evaluate
>dates out of Text-Registers.
>So one can fill any date into a register
>and then get the result, e.g.:
>
>Reg_Set(104, "12/25/2006")
>#103=Num_Eval_Date(@104)

Yes, this would be handy, especially if it handled alphabetic months like 01 Feb 2007, commonly encountered in internet coding.

 


Topic: Re: Date Format (7 of 12), Read 31 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Ted Green
Date: Monday, October 15, 2007 10:55 PM

At 07:35 PM 10/3/2007, you wrote:
>>And yes, unfortunately Num_Eval_Date()
>>doesn't have the REVERSE option
>>for yyyy-mm-dd.
>
>This is the main reason I haven't changed my default to yyyy-mm-dd, because there is no point in inserting dates you can't then convert.

I have confirmed that Num_Eval_Date() cannot read the yyyy-mm-dd format. I'll give more details soon, but Tom Burt is resuming work on VEDIT again. We will implement/fix a few of the items recently mentioned and hopefully release a minor update soon.

Ted.

 


Topic: Re: Date Format (11 of 12), Read 9 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Ian Binnie
Date: Saturday, April 12, 2008 09:37 PM

On 10/15/2007 10:55:20 PM, Ted Green wrote:
>At 07:35 PM 10/3/2007, you
>wrote:
>>>And yes, unfortunately Num_Eval_Date()
>>>doesn't have the REVERSE option
>>>for yyyy-mm-dd.
>>
>>This is the main reason I haven't changed my default to yyyy-mm-dd, because there is no point in inserting dates you can't then convert.
>
>I have confirmed that
>Num_Eval_Date() cannot read
>the yyyy-mm-dd format. I'll
>give more details soon, but
>Tom Burt is resuming work on
>VEDIT again. We will
>implement/fix a few of the
>items recently mentioned and
>hopefully release a minor
>update soon.
>
>Ted.

I just tried Num_Eval_Date(REVERSE)
in VEDIT (32-Bit) Ver. 6.15.2 02/12/08
and it seems to work, but is not mentioned in help or new-cmds.txt or whatsnew.txt.

 


Topic: Re: Date Format (12 of 12), Read 11 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Ted Green
Date: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:35 AM

At 09:37 PM 4/12/2008, you wrote:
>I just tried Num_Eval_Date(REVERSE)
>in VEDIT (32-Bit) Ver. 6.15.2 02/12/08
>and it seems to work, but is not mentioned in help or new-cmds.txt or whatsnew.txt.

I'll that to my "Doco to-do" list. Thanks for the reminder.

Ted.

 


Topic: Re: Date Format (8 of 12), Read 29 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Pauli Lindgren
Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:28 AM

On 10/3/2007 7:34:54 PM, Ian Binnie wrote:
>>
>>Reg_Set(104, "12/25/2006")
>>#103=Num_Eval_Date(@104)
>
>Yes, this would be handy, especially if
>it handled alphabetic months like 01 Feb
>2007, commonly encountered in internet
>coding.

That would be quite a special case, so maybe it is not necessary to implement it in Vedit application itself. After all, you can always create macros for that.

In addition, the alphabetic month is language specific. Having support just for English would not be enough.
And the format is not standardized. It could be
"01 Feb 2007" or "01 February 2007" or "01 February, 2007" or "Feb 01 2007" etc. I have seen many different formats in email headers, for example.

Anyway, the RFC (i.e. Internet standard) uses numeric date format.

--
Pauli

 


Topic: Re: Date Format (9 of 12), Read 29 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Ted Green
Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:45 AM

At 10:32 AM 10/16/2007, you wrote:
>From: "Pauli Lindgren"
>
>On 10/3/2007 7:34:54 PM, Ian Binnie wrote:
>>>
>>>Reg_Set(104, "12/25/2006")
>>>#103=Num_Eval_Date(@104)
>>
>>Yes, this would be handy, especially if
>>it handled alphabetic months like 01 Feb
>>2007, commonly encountered in internet
>>coding.
>
>That would be quite a special case, so maybe it is not necessary to implement it in Vedit application itself. After all, you can always create macros for that.
>
>In addition, the alphabetic month is language specific. Having support just for English would not be enough.
>And the format is not standardized. It could be
>"01 Feb 2007" or "01 February 2007" or "01 February, 2007" or "Feb 01 2007" etc. I have seen many different formats in email headers, for example.

I do not plan to implement the alphabetic month, except as a macro.

Ted.

 


Topic: Re: Date Format (10 of 12), Read 29 times
Conf: VEDIT Suggestions
From: Ian Binnie
Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 09:45 PM

On 10/16/2007 10:28:17 AM, Pauli Lindgren wrote:
>On 10/3/2007 7:34:54 PM, Ian Binnie
>wrote:
>>>
>>>Reg_Set(104, "12/25/2006")
>>>#103=Num_Eval_Date(@104)
>>
>>Yes, this would be handy, especially if
>>it handled alphabetic months like 01 Feb
>>2007, commonly encountered in internet
>>coding.
>
>That would be quite a special case, so
>maybe it is not necessary to implement
>it in Vedit application itself. After
>all, you can always create macros for
>that.
>
>In addition, the alphabetic month is
>language specific. Having support just
>for English would not be enough.
>And the format is not standardized. It
>could be
>"01 Feb 2007" or "01 February 2007" or
>"01 February, 2007" or "Feb 01 2007"
>etc. I have seen many different formats
>in email headers, for example.
>
>Anyway, the RFC (i.e. Internet standard)
>uses numeric date format.
>
>--
>Pauli
>
I note that Ted has indicated he will not be implementing alphabetic months, and I agree that many different formats and languages are used in various contexts.

RFC 2822 (and RFC 822 which is still the official IETF standard) specify 3 character English months see "Date and Time Specification".
There is no proposal to change this (as far as I am aware), although RFC 3339 discusses ISO 8601 formats of Date and Time for the Internet.

Any other format you may have seen would be a result of translation by an email client - the underlying MIME always conforms to RFC 2822/822

I have, of course written my own macros, which are included in my email processing macros.