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: Mike FABIAN <mfabian at redhat dot com>
- To: Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>
- Cc: 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: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:31:00 +0100
- Subject: Re: Japanese Era name change and named vs. numbered era date.
- References: <14ae7cd0-2af2-97ef-f5ab-0c7813576f0b@redhat.com> <1789620025.672081.1548801637264@poczta.nazwa.pl>
Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> さんはかきました:
> 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.
Yes:
$ date --date=1989-01-07 +%EY
昭和64年
$ date --date=1989-01-08 +%EY
平成元年
$ date --date=1990-01-07 +%EY
平成2年
> In case of "%Ey" it may be impossible.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rafal
--
Mike FABIAN <mfabian@redhat.com>
睡眠不足はいい仕事の敵だ。