Re: Re: Date::Manip and Date::Calc

Is Time::Local a standard module? I had to install it manually for 5.005_03, though it seems to have come standard with my 5.6.0 installation.

I once asked a similiar question, but since you used both Time::Local and POSIX, I'll ask it again. Is there a particular reason you chose Time::Local::timelocal() over POSIX::mktime()?

-Blake

Comment on Re: Re: Date::Manip and Date::Calc

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Date::Manip and Date::Calc by davorg (Chancellor) on Oct 22, 2001 at 22:09 UTC
Time::Local has been a part of standard Perl for at least six years. If you had to install it manually for 5.005_03, then I think you had a broken installation. The reason for using Time::Local::timelocal is that it's a function that I know and use. I didn't know that POSIX::mktime existed until you mentioned it the other day. In this case, POSIX::mktime might make more sense, as it would mean loading one less module. -- <http://www.dave.org.uk> "The first rule of Perl club is you don't talk about Perl club."	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: Date::Manip and Date::Calc
by davorg (Chancellor) on Oct 22, 2001 at 22:09 UTC

Time::Local has been a part of standard Perl for at least six years. If you had to install it manually for 5.005_03, then I think you had a broken installation.

The reason for using Time::Local::timelocal is that it's a function that I know and use. I didn't know that POSIX::mktime existed until you mentioned it the other day. In this case, POSIX::mktime might make more sense, as it would mean loading one less module.

http://www.dave.org.uk

"The first rule of Perl club is you don't talk about Perl club."

[reply]