From ggrothendieck at gmail.com  Sun Jul 16 00:14:35 2006
From: ggrothendieck at gmail.com (Gabor Grothendieck)
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:14:35 -0400
Subject: [Rd] chron vs. POSIX
In-Reply-To: <44B95086.1040903@stats.uwo.ca>
References: <87psg8rn75.fsf@arctocephalus.homelinux.org>
	<44B83EA3.7020700@stats.uwo.ca>
	<971536df0607151001l536b65c8t6ad40393fd3e35f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<44B9225C.8000307@stats.uwo.ca>
	<971536df0607151037q3ad8d114vb6e050ac8bb6d032@mail.gmail.com>
	<44B95086.1040903@stats.uwo.ca>
Message-ID: <971536df0607151514t1671e4f1s6b2bf703940ecda1@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/15/06, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> wrote:
> On 7/15/2006 1:37 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> > On 7/15/06, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> wrote:
> >> On 7/15/2006 1:01 PM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> >>> On 7/14/06, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> wrote:
> >>>> On 7/14/2006 3:38 PM, Sebastian Luque wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One of the big decisions when writing code is how to handle dates and
> >>>>> times.  Gabor Grothendieck provided an excellent overview of the issue in
> >>>>> his R News 4/1 (2004) article, and many users and developers are probably
> >>>>> using it as a guide.  The proposed guideline is to use the simplest class
> >>>>> required; as Gabor put it "use Date if possible, otherwise use chron, and
> >>>>> otherwise use POSIX".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This seems to me a very efficient strategy, judging from my own
> >>>>> experiences and those of others users.  All but the simplest calculations
> >>>>> with POSIX objects demand great care, due to time zone and and daylight
> >>>>> savings considerations.  Therefore, I've always chosen chron for
> >>>>> relatively complex projects, where I don't need to deal with time zones or
> >>>>> daylight savings problems.  The ease with which objects can be switched
> >>>>> from numeric to chron representations is a major advantage IMHO?.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>> variables is so fundamental, the addition of chron to base R would provide
> >>>>> users everything they need to work with time, without the need to rely on
> >>>>> an external package.  What do others think?
> >>>> Putting something into base R essentially means that it is to be taken
> >>>> over by R core.  I think chron is being adequately maintained now (the R
> >>>> maintainer is already a member of R core), so I don't see a need for that.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see a problem having a package on CRAN.  If it's a good package
> >>>> and people realize that it's good, and it remains available for others
> >>>> to use, then what problem is being solved?
> >>> I think the problem is that there is nothing to signal its importance.  Perhaps
> >>> chron should be added to the "recommended" package list.
> >> I think that would be preferable to making it a base package, but it's
> >> not the only way to publicize it.  Why not add something to the  Wiki to
> >> compare the various possibilities for storing dates and times?
> >
> > As a recommended package it would be included in all binary releases
> > ensuring access without a separate install and would provide more
> > official endorsement.
>
> Yes, but that wasn't my question.  A Wiki entry on dates and times would
> be useful whether chron is a recommended package or not.  Why don't you
> write one based on your R News article, or at least write what you like
> about chron?  The nice thing about wikis is that if you write anything
> inaccurate, someone else will come along and correct you; if you miss
> something, someone will add it.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>

I think the R News article already sums up any knowledge I have on
the subject.   If anyone else has anything to add perhaps they could
put that in the wiki.



[Rd] chron vs. POSIX
Gabor Grothendieck