Date/time class changes to handle extended date ranges

[David Jarvie]

On Monday 20 February 2006 9:12, 'R.F. Pels' wrote:
>On Monday 20 February 2006 03.24, David Jarvie wrote:
>
>> I don't believe that it's either a hard-and-fast rule that Q and K classes
>> have to have exactly the relationship you describe, and nor do I think that
>> it's misleading if a class is properly documented. You have your opinions,
>> I disagree. If other people whose opinion carries weight agree with you, I
>> am quite happy to go along with that and change the name. But until then, I
>> propose to use KDate and KDateTime as the simplest, most straightforward
>> names for the classes.
>
>So, basically, what you're saying is you're unwilling to consider the 
>arguments, discount my arguments as carrying no weight and go on with it. Am 
>I right here? 

I didn't word my reply well. You are partly citing KDE convention to back up your 
position. What I meant to say is that until people who know about such things say that 
you are right in that respect, I don't buy into it. So far, unless I'm mistaken, 
nobody else has agreed with you on the naming issue. So unless that changes, and 
because I disagree with you, I will use the names which I proposed.

--
David Jarvie.
KAlarm author & maintainer.
http://www.astrojar.org.uk/linux/kalarm.html