This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Japanese Era name change and named vs. numbered era date.
- From: Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, TAMUKI Shoichi <tamuki at linet dot gr dot jp>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 23:40:37 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: Japanese Era name change and named vs. numbered era date.
- References: <14ae7cd0-2af2-97ef-f5ab-0c7813576f0b@redhat.com>
Carlos,
29.01.2019 19:33 Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> TAMUKI-san,
>
> Is it important to describe the first era year as "元"
> versus "1"? Or to allow the user to control this?
>
> This particular issue was raised as a Java issue, where
> "Gy" via DateTimeFormatter can print [Era name][Era year],
> but does so with [Era year] as a number (arabic numeral).
>
> I don't know how you would implement such an alternative
> because it would require enumerating all of the possible
> non-arabic-numeral alternatives. It would be an interesting
> addition, but I'm not sure it is valuable to do it this way.
>
> Thoughts?
Are you talking about "%Ey" or "%EY"? In case of "%EY" it is
implemented already. In case of "%Ey" it may be impossible.
Regards,
Rafal