Improve and correct function definitions in Foundation types
Description
Activity
Thomas Beale February 23, 2021 at 1:28 PM
you’ve got me there! ‘day’ and ‘date’ is a bit of a grey zone in this technical English. Each time I read it, the meaning changes slightly, like one of those 3-d diagrams that can change concavity… In the interests of better consistency, I’ll change it to your version.
Sebastian Garde February 23, 2021 at 1:16 PM
I’ll take your English advice - but my comment is based on that within the spec we are talking about an ISO 8601 date class and within that class day() is defined as “Extract the day part of the date as an Integer, or return 0 if not present.“ and day_unknown() as “Indicates whether day in month is unknown”.
Certainly not fussing over it and have accepted already - but from my point of view “same day in month” would then be unambigous (vs. same day next week).
Thomas Beale February 23, 2021 at 10:41 AM
I think the text is correct as is - ‘same date’ means the same number (i.e. 12th or 27th or whatever), whereas ‘same day’ could mean ‘Tuesday' or so.
Sebastian Garde February 23, 2021 at 10:20 AM
Just a very minor thing: in Iso8601_date.add_nominal I would say “day” or “day in month” not “date” for:
the same datey in the following month, or
Thomas Beale March 26, 2020 at 1:18 PM
Well caught. Probably other eagle eyes will catch a few other things.
The current specification of arithmetic, comparison, and other such functions on the Foundation types is not generally correct UML. The functions need also to be expanded to more fully specify expected semantics for operators that may be used with all Foundation types, including the time types.