<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 5:30 AM, David T. Lewis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lewis@mail.msen.com" target="_blank">lewis@mail.msen.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">A bit off topic, but is is worth asking:<br>
If we really want to model Date as a position on a continuum of date<br>
values, and if we think that the implementation of Date as a kind of<br>
Timespan is not right, then shouldn't we just consider going back to<br>
the earlier (Squeak 3.6 and earlier) implementation of Date as a Magnitude,<br>
rather than Date as a Timespan?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this is a very relevant question. We may have to distinguish a Day from a Date.</div><div><br></div><div>IMHO a birthday is a perfect example. It's defined by a day+month+year. If I was traveling I would celebrate the birthday in local time, so the generic "birthday" needs to compare equal to all the local dates independent of time zone.</div><div><br></div><div>This is how Dates worked before we made them Timespans (because they had no time, and hence no time zone). And this is also how they worked after I added the "nil" offset hack (which ignores the timezone). But it's a hack, not a good design. I'm not entirely sure what a good design would look like that also does not break old code.</div><div><br></div><div>- Bert -</div></div><br></div></div>