Date/time class changes to handle extended date ranges

[R.F. Pels]

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? 

-- 
R.F. Pels,  3e Rompert 118,  5233 AL  's-Hertogenbosch,  The Netherlands
+31736414590        ruurd at tiscali.nl       http://home.tiscali.nl/~ruurd