Danh Doan <congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2020-04-23 21:41:49+0100, Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> wrote: >> On 23/04/2020 20:28, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > Danh Doan <congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Would is_hhmmss() and is_yyyymmdd() be more obvious abbreviations for >> most readers? >> >> Now that I type them, they do feel that bit too long... , as naming is >> hard, maybe stick with the yms and hms, though I do keep wanting to type >> ytd for the former.. > > Not sure if I interpret your opinion correctly, > Did you mean s/yms/ymd/ and s/ytd/ymd/? > > Even that, I couldn't grasp the meaning of the last phase? Here is how I understood it. Philip thinks, and I admit I have to agree with, that HMS would not be understood as hour-minute-seconds by most people, and YMD would not be as yearh-month-day, either. His "yms" in "stick with the yms and hms" is a typo of "ymd". He is saying that even though YYMMDD and HHMMSS would look a lot more natural, it is too long to type so YMD and HMS may not be so terrible a compromise. With the "ytd" in the last one, he is saying that another downside of saying "ymd" (other than that it is not how we usually spell year-month-date), even though "ymd" might be an acceptable compromise, is that it is too easy to get confused with year-to-date that is commonly abbreviated as "YTD".
