New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider LocalDate.At(LocalTime) and LocalTime.On(LocalDate) #192

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this Issue Mar 15, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 15, 2015

From http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14724399 it's clear that the LocalDate 
+ LocalTime operator isn't terribly discoverable.

We should *consider* adding methods which are more discoverable (the 
Intellisense behaviour when you put a dot after a variable name does make 
methods more discoverable than operators...)

No urgency here - it'll be trivial when we've worked out what's appropriate.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jonathan.skeet on 11 Feb 2013 at 7:45

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 15, 2015

Small extra point of info: Java 8 has LocalDate.atTime, and LocalTime.atDate.

Original comment by jonathan.skeet on 30 Mar 2014 at 8:12

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 15, 2015

Small extra point of info: Java 8 has LocalDate.atTime, and LocalTime.atDate.

Original comment by jonathan.skeet on 30 Mar 2014 at 8:12

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 15, 2015

Funny, I had thought we had this already, then I realized I had extension 
methods in my  project that I added long ago for this very purpose!  At the 
time, I hadn't realized that the + operator had been implemented at all, so my 
extension methods were implemented by raw math against ticks.

Personally, I like On and At the way you have specified in the issue title 
better than I like the Java8 naming.

Original comment by mj1856 on 10 Apr 2014 at 4:03

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 15, 2015

Funny, I had thought we had this already, then I realized I had extension 
methods in my  project that I added long ago for this very purpose!  At the 
time, I hadn't realized that the + operator had been implemented at all, so my 
extension methods were implemented by raw math against ticks.

Personally, I like On and At the way you have specified in the issue title 
better than I like the Java8 naming.

Original comment by mj1856 on 10 Apr 2014 at 4:03

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 15, 2015

This issue was closed by revision 343e8ee8b25c.

Original comment by jonathan.skeet on 10 Apr 2014 at 7:30

  • Changed state: Fixed

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 15, 2015

This issue was closed by revision 343e8ee8b25c.

Original comment by jonathan.skeet on 10 Apr 2014 at 7:30

  • Changed state: Fixed
@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 15, 2015

(Given the support for On/At, and that I haven't thought of anything better, 
I've just gone ahead :)

Original comment by jonathan.skeet on 10 Apr 2014 at 7:31

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 15, 2015

(Given the support for On/At, and that I haven't thought of anything better, 
I've just gone ahead :)

Original comment by jonathan.skeet on 10 Apr 2014 at 7:31

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 15, 2015

Original comment by malcolm.rowe on 13 Apr 2014 at 10:43

  • Added labels: Milestone-1.3.0
  • Removed labels: Milestone-unscheduled

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 15, 2015

Original comment by malcolm.rowe on 13 Apr 2014 at 10:43

  • Added labels: Milestone-1.3.0
  • Removed labels: Milestone-unscheduled

@malcolmr malcolmr modified the milestone: 1.3.0 Mar 15, 2015

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment