Re: [POLL] Proposed syntax for timestamps with time zone info

[Stefan Nobis <stefan-ml@snobis.de>]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

> Note that an alternative is 

>  [2022-11-12 10:30-11:00]
>  [2022-11-12 10:30-11]
>  [2022-11-12 10:30-11:00-11]

> which is much less confusing.

Hmmm... is it? I read a lot different timestamps these days and
currently I'm very careful reading them, especially while considering
syntax details. Therefore I'm reading slowly and only few timestamps
at once.

But real life sometimes get hectic and stressful. And then I might
only throw a glance at timestamps, hoping to get the important details
- surely I will remember all the important details. :) In these cases I
would much prefer a syntax that is a bit less terse like

>  [2022-11-12 10:30 @+02]

So I would vote for Timothys variant.

Considering Timothys other proposal:

>> I like the way that combining these features works, but I do wonder if perhaps
>> warning when these two bits of information don’t match should be the default
>> behaviour, and the `!' used to specify which of them should be prioritised?

I do not like the semantics.

>> ┌────
>> │ [2022-11-12 12:00 @+07,Asia/Singapore]  # warn when mismatch
>> │ [2022-11-12 12:00 @+07,!Asia/Singapore] # use Asia/Singapore over +07

I read "@+07,!Asia/Singapore" as "use UTC offset +07 but be aware of
time zone Asia/Singapore, from which I got the offset in the first
place".

On the other hand, I read "@+07,Asia/Singapore" as "use UTC offset
+07, which I got from the Asia/Singapore time zone".

So for me a possible warning should go with the "!" variant. In the
case without "!", for me the syntax suggests a more informative
meaning for the time zone name part.

Therefore I would vote for Ihors variant for this part. :)

-- 
Until the next mail...,
Stefan.