2 ms·
> Vast majority of uses of cal apply to dates > 1900 (and I'd say a significant amount is > 2000) According to what? Your use? > 'cal 16' should require a fl
by gkya 11y ago
> Vast majority of uses of cal apply to dates > 1900 (and I'd say a significant amount is > 2000)
According to what? Your use?
> 'cal 16' should require a flag saying "Yes, I know what I'm doing, this is the actual year" and/or print the corresponding year for this century (being explicit, when printing, to which year it refers to)
The command wants a year number as input. '16 is an ambiguous abbreviation that gains meaning only within context. As the command can't ask you what you meant, the default behaviour is sane.
- d0mine 11y agoYes, 'cal 16' is ambiguous (is it 0016, 1916, 2016? Different software may return different answers). Without an explicit flag that should be used in a script, the dwim behavior (2016) seems more appropriate for the interactive use.
- gkya 11y agocal 16 unambiguously refers to 16 a.d. Don't forget that we include an apostrophe before a shortened year.
- raverbashing 11y ago> According to what? Your use? Do you know anyone or any use case that requires calculations of years between 0-99 and uses cal? Yes, it is quite obvious that most uses is for years > 1900, you're free to do a study yourself if that's what you want. > As the command can't ask you what you meant, the default behaviour is sane. Not from an usability point of view.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]