Slightly smarter date parsing?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 15:58 +0100, Christian Stimming wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Thomas Bushnell BSG schrieb:
> > On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 15:16 -0600, Jamuraa wrote:
> >> When putting in 12/23 or similar, I didn't get
> >> December 23, 2006, but December 23, 2007.  I thought this should be
> >> different, so I dove into the gnucash code and changed qof_scan_date
> >> slightly to choose the last year for December if the current month is
> >> January.  The patch is attached.
> > 
> > This behavior has also always annoyed me.
> 
> For the record, this behaviour does *not* annoy me. Instead, I would
> rather be annoyed by gnucash starting to (apparently) guess some year
> where I would rather want a clear, precise deterministic rule, easily
> described by "the current year" and that's it.

All of the proposals being tossed about are both clear and
deterministic.  I agree that we want a clear and deterministic rule, but
I reject the idea that "current year" is the only clear and
deterministic rule.

Thomas

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/attachments/20070109/dd8a4251/attachment.bin