From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Fri Jul 14 22:32:04 2006
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:32:04 -0400
Subject: [Rd] chron vs. POSIX
In-Reply-To: <17591.64287.118524.251828@basebud.nulle.part>
References: <87psg8rn75.fsf@arctocephalus.homelinux.org>
	<17591.64287.118524.251828@basebud.nulle.part>
Message-ID: <971536df0607141332l1d8489adgeeb530efb4668081@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/14/06, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> wrote:
>
> On 14 July 2006 at 14:38, Sebastian Luque wrote:
> | If Gabor's recommendations are to be followed, wouldn't it make sense to
> | include chron in base R?  Given that flexibility for handling time
>
> Future historians will provide a fuller account of the extended debates, but
> my reading of these discussions here over the last few years leaves me with
> the impression that Gabor is arguing for chron in a manner that is
> simultaneously informed, polite, persistent and yet ... utterly isolated.
>
> Date and POSIXt have served me well over the last few years. They are
> maintained and being extended [ 1 ]. Chron, to the best of my knowledge, is
> dead code so I'd bet against it appearing in core R any time soon.
>
> Regards, Dirk
>
> [ 1 ] I had some pleasant exchanges with Brian Ripley where I was able to
> suggest a few extension relative to the new millisecond granularity in POSIXt
> and its interfaces.

Recent releases of chron include

- July 14th (today!), see
  http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Descriptions/chron.html

- June 23rd (less than one month ago),

- May 9th (two months ago)

(this may not be a complete list of recent releases) so I would characterize
chron as actively maintained and given the occasional question on r-help
its likely that its widely used too.



[Rd] chron vs. POSIX
Gabor Grothendieck