Junio is correct. On 24/04/2020 01:46, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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". True. -- Philip
