Mixing
Time from core 2.3.0 vs from stdlib 2.5.3
I'm a little confused with Ruby documentation on https://ruby-doc.org/. We can find there Time class as a part of core 2.3.0, where we have 60 functions described, and also Time class as a part of stdlib 2.5.3, where we have only 13. Does these descriptions describe the same class? Are both actual for Ruby 2.5.3? Which of these descriptions should I trust?
ruby
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:34
Karol Selak
1,26611332
add a comment |
I'm a little confused with Ruby documentation on https://ruby-doc.org/. We can find there Time class as a part of core 2.3.0, where we have 60 functions described, and also Time class as a part of stdlib 2.5.3, where we have only 13. Does these descriptions describe the same class? Are both actual for Ruby 2.5.3? Which of these descriptions should I trust?
ruby
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:34
Karol Selak
1,26611332
1
The docs from stdlib are pretty clear: "When 'time' is required, Time is extended with additional methods for parsing and converting Times.". So yes, these are two different things: the coreTimeclass and some add-ons from stdlib.
– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:45
1
Regarding the two versions: ruby-doc.org hosts docs for several Ruby versions. You should probably use the one matching your Ruby version.
– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:48
add a comment |
I'm a little confused with Ruby documentation on https://ruby-doc.org/. We can find there Time class as a part of core 2.3.0, where we have 60 functions described, and also Time class as a part of stdlib 2.5.3, where we have only 13. Does these descriptions describe the same class? Are both actual for Ruby 2.5.3? Which of these descriptions should I trust?
ruby
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:34
Karol Selak
1,26611332
I'm a little confused with Ruby documentation on https://ruby-doc.org/. We can find there Time class as a part of core 2.3.0, where we have 60 functions described, and also Time class as a part of stdlib 2.5.3, where we have only 13. Does these descriptions describe the same class? Are both actual for Ruby 2.5.3? Which of these descriptions should I trust?
ruby
ruby
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:34
Karol Selak
1,26611332
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:34
Karol Selak
1,26611332
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:34
Karol Selak
1,26611332
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:34
Karol Selak
1,26611332
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:34
Karol Selak
1,26611332
1,26611332
1
The docs from stdlib are pretty clear: "When 'time' is required, Time is extended with additional methods for parsing and converting Times.". So yes, these are two different things: the coreTimeclass and some add-ons from stdlib.
– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:45
1
Regarding the two versions: ruby-doc.org hosts docs for several Ruby versions. You should probably use the one matching your Ruby version.
– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:48
add a comment |
1
The docs from stdlib are pretty clear: "When 'time' is required, Time is extended with additional methods for parsing and converting Times.". So yes, these are two different things: the coreTimeclass and some add-ons from stdlib.
– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:45
1
Regarding the two versions: ruby-doc.org hosts docs for several Ruby versions. You should probably use the one matching your Ruby version.
– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:48
1
1
The docs from stdlib are pretty clear: "When 'time' is required, Time is extended with additional methods for parsing and converting Times.". So yes, these are two different things: the core
Time class and some add-ons from stdlib.– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:45
The docs from stdlib are pretty clear: "When 'time' is required, Time is extended with additional methods for parsing and converting Times.". So yes, these are two different things: the core
Time class and some add-ons from stdlib.– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:45
1
1
Regarding the two versions: ruby-doc.org hosts docs for several Ruby versions. You should probably use the one matching your Ruby version.
– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:48
Regarding the two versions: ruby-doc.org hosts docs for several Ruby versions. You should probably use the one matching your Ruby version.
– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:48
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
There is both a core Time library and a stdlib Time library.
Core one implements the core functionality of Time. Its structures, basic math, time zones, and generic formatting functions. Stdlib adds additional convenience methods for parsing and formatting.
I can only guess why from my own experience with dates and times. There are a lot of date and time formats and they can rapidly bloat out an otherwise simple library both for memory and complexity. I presume the Ruby folks wanted to keep core Time simple and made the extra formatting optional.
Time does have a few formatting functions like asctime, ctime, and strftime. These you get for free from C, and strftime is quite powerful.
answered Nov 19 '18 at 17:01
Schwern
88.4k16101229
It is really odd thatTimeexists by default andrequire 'time'adds more methods toTime, but that's how it is.
– tadman
Nov 19 '18 at 17:29
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53379015%2ftime-from-core-2-3-0-vs-from-stdlib-2-5-3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There is both a core Time library and a stdlib Time library.
Core one implements the core functionality of Time. Its structures, basic math, time zones, and generic formatting functions. Stdlib adds additional convenience methods for parsing and formatting.
I can only guess why from my own experience with dates and times. There are a lot of date and time formats and they can rapidly bloat out an otherwise simple library both for memory and complexity. I presume the Ruby folks wanted to keep core Time simple and made the extra formatting optional.
Time does have a few formatting functions like asctime, ctime, and strftime. These you get for free from C, and strftime is quite powerful.
answered Nov 19 '18 at 17:01
Schwern
88.4k16101229
It is really odd thatTimeexists by default andrequire 'time'adds more methods toTime, but that's how it is.
– tadman
Nov 19 '18 at 17:29
add a comment |
There is both a core Time library and a stdlib Time library.
Core one implements the core functionality of Time. Its structures, basic math, time zones, and generic formatting functions. Stdlib adds additional convenience methods for parsing and formatting.
I can only guess why from my own experience with dates and times. There are a lot of date and time formats and they can rapidly bloat out an otherwise simple library both for memory and complexity. I presume the Ruby folks wanted to keep core Time simple and made the extra formatting optional.
Time does have a few formatting functions like asctime, ctime, and strftime. These you get for free from C, and strftime is quite powerful.
answered Nov 19 '18 at 17:01
Schwern
88.4k16101229
It is really odd thatTimeexists by default andrequire 'time'adds more methods toTime, but that's how it is.
– tadman
Nov 19 '18 at 17:29
add a comment |
There is both a core Time library and a stdlib Time library.
Core one implements the core functionality of Time. Its structures, basic math, time zones, and generic formatting functions. Stdlib adds additional convenience methods for parsing and formatting.
I can only guess why from my own experience with dates and times. There are a lot of date and time formats and they can rapidly bloat out an otherwise simple library both for memory and complexity. I presume the Ruby folks wanted to keep core Time simple and made the extra formatting optional.
Time does have a few formatting functions like asctime, ctime, and strftime. These you get for free from C, and strftime is quite powerful.
answered Nov 19 '18 at 17:01
Schwern
88.4k16101229
There is both a core Time library and a stdlib Time library.
Core one implements the core functionality of Time. Its structures, basic math, time zones, and generic formatting functions. Stdlib adds additional convenience methods for parsing and formatting.
I can only guess why from my own experience with dates and times. There are a lot of date and time formats and they can rapidly bloat out an otherwise simple library both for memory and complexity. I presume the Ruby folks wanted to keep core Time simple and made the extra formatting optional.
Time does have a few formatting functions like asctime, ctime, and strftime. These you get for free from C, and strftime is quite powerful.
answered Nov 19 '18 at 17:01
Schwern
88.4k16101229
answered Nov 19 '18 at 17:01
Schwern
88.4k16101229
answered Nov 19 '18 at 17:01
Schwern
88.4k16101229
answered Nov 19 '18 at 17:01
Schwern
88.4k16101229
88.4k16101229
It is really odd thatTimeexists by default andrequire 'time'adds more methods toTime, but that's how it is.
– tadman
Nov 19 '18 at 17:29
add a comment |
It is really odd thatTimeexists by default andrequire 'time'adds more methods toTime, but that's how it is.
– tadman
Nov 19 '18 at 17:29
It is really odd that
Time exists by default and require 'time' adds more methods to Time, but that's how it is.– tadman
Nov 19 '18 at 17:29
It is really odd that
Time exists by default and require 'time' adds more methods to Time, but that's how it is.– tadman
Nov 19 '18 at 17:29
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53379015%2ftime-from-core-2-3-0-vs-from-stdlib-2-5-3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
The docs from stdlib are pretty clear: "When 'time' is required, Time is extended with additional methods for parsing and converting Times.". So yes, these are two different things: the core
Timeclass and some add-ons from stdlib.– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:45
1
Regarding the two versions: ruby-doc.org hosts docs for several Ruby versions. You should probably use the one matching your Ruby version.
– Stefan
Nov 19 '18 at 16:48