Proposal: Duration

Naveen Chawla naveen.chwl at gmail.com
Mon Mar 4 19:21:20 UTC 2019


I don't like it. Duration is just milliseconds for me.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 18:47 Alexandre Morgaut <alexandre.morgaut at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Here a proposal to make ECMAScript natively support a Duration Object
>
> I talked about it a long time ago (2011) on the WHATWG mailing list in the
> context of the Timers API:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2011Feb/0533.htm
>
> l think that such a proposal would better take place in the core of the
> language and having worked on a framework date time APIs I tried to give
> this approach a better look.
>
> ECMAScript natively support Dates since its very first version
> It started to support the ISO 8601 string format in edition 5
> (15.9.1.15 Date Time String Format )
>
> Durations like Dates can be very tricky, especially with I18n in mind, but
> the ECMA standard already had to be handled most of the Duration tricky
> part for the Date Object in EMCA 262 & ECMA 402.
>
> Duration, sometimes called TimeInterval, is a common concept supported by
> most languages or associated standard libs.
>
> In very short, Duration object would:
> - support the ISO syntax in its contructor: new Duration('P6W') // for
> Period 6 Weeks
> - allow to handle Date diff operations
> - allow to be interpreted by setTimeout() & setInterval()
>
> Please find below a draft exposing the concept
> I'd be very happy if someone from TC39 would be interested to champion it
> https://github.com/AMorgaut/proposal-Duration
>
> Regards,
>
> Alexandre.
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190304/b2e51f30/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list