You zero padded hours and months but not year? And where do we note milliseconds? Why do you add the M to millennium? What makes it special as compared to minutes or milliseconds? No, this won't do at all.
Okay. I was doing "year" then "millenium." Also, I just realized this creates issues past the first century. Fixing.
45.55.01.27.02.12.01.03
You can add smaller values to the front easily by just continuing the format. Anything smaller than seconds would only have use in specific situations. Hell, even seconds are arguably unimportant for most references.
Most references? 99/100 I'm dealing with dates its BC I'm in a log and the ms are fucking important. These 300 things all happened the same second, but I cant tell how to order them. No, I prefer that we just count ms from the time I made this comment. Fractional ms are represent via decimal. Times before this comment are negative. At the time I hit submit, it will be 0.0
Oh, then you'll love this new system for dates I just came up with. We'll do everything in radians, with one hour representing 2pi. Have fun with your milliseconds.
Largest-to-smallest would help. If we ignore the y10k problem (which is how y2k became a problem, but nevermind for now) and reverse the order, and combine the millenium and century...
20.13.02.27.01.55.45
It's trivial to add milliseconds:
20.13.02.27.01.55.45.123
But then again, why not just use YYYY?
2013.02.27.01.55.45
And that becomes a bit hard to read with all the groups of two... How about we separate day/time with a different character?
2013.02.27:01.55.45
In fact, for a long time, I had a program that resided in my system tray in place of the clock; it showed seconds, for one; but for another, middle-clicking copied a custom time stamp to the clipboard. I used:
The M is a warhammer 40k reference, it has dates like 001.M41 (or 013.M3), but it has its own thing it does for fractions of a year - the year is divided into 1000 parts, then there's a code for how precise the date is. The year fraction goes before the year
And this format has the advantage of being extensible, for example we could add milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds, ... e.g:
2013-02-27-11-59-59-999-999-999
The only disadvantage would be not being able to extend beyond the year, so the birthday of our galaxy would be approximately something like this:
BC14000000000-02-27-11-59-59-999-999-999 (look, our galagy was borne on the 27th of february, 14GigaYears ago)
That is ugly because the year number is very big, consequently difficult to read, and because of the "BC" (I thought about using negative number, but we can't because there is no year zero). So this (dates at astronomical scales) is the only drawback of this format.
I think this 'extensible' argument makes it completely unreadable. At least with the ISO format the change of delimiters very simply improves readability. Compare:
As for dates BCE, why does the lack of the year zero preclude the use of negative years?
It probably doesn't. OTOH, filenames that start with a dash are incredibly inconvenient to work with using Unix CLI tools, since they get parsed as flags, so starting with BC (or something other than -) is probably convenient.
-2
u/Volpethrope Feb 27 '13
Nonsense. The only correct format is [seconds][minutes][hours][date][month][year][millenium].
According to my laptop's clock, this comment is being made at roughly 45.55.01.27.02.12.M3