Now that you're logged in, I'll reply here so you'll get a notification of my reply :-)
that does not excuse the rudeness of the replies. Obviously the module was located, but upon casually reviewing the inadequate documentation, I would have the same question.
1. I wasn't being rude, I posted a link to an obvious first module to try when solving the problem.
2. It wasn't at all obvious the module was located - that information was added later. If the original poster already tried the module and/or couldn't get it to do what he wanted he should have said so, preferably with some specific pointers/questions about why it didn't work.
See also How do I post a question effectively?
Update: removed some irrelevant stuff when I saw the OP was edited.
| [reply] |
Again, agreed that the question was lacking. I was not aware the original post was back-modified; that explains your reply.
I was led to this post in the first place after reading the pod for Time::Julian, which had a bothersome Errata that refered me to Astro::Time which uses the term Modified Julian day with only (JD-2500000.5 2400000.5) as a definition. I got a hit for perlmonks and was reassured, but then disappointed reading the responses. I think I'll write my own code rather than use a module. Probably wont post it though.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |