On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 03:36:53PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
On 06/02/18 15:24, Michael Stone wrote:On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:32:06PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote:And for the far past, cal is superior; compare: $ cal -3 9 1752 August 1752 September 1752 October 1752 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 1 2 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 30 31Unfortunately, as cal isn't locale-aware, it's just wrong. :) ncal handles (some) country codes.... and how do you deal with locales that have changed definition over time? What was the country code for (eg) Prussia in 1752? It just gets painful ...
Yes, this is more a novelty than anything. Even apart from changing national borders, things were seldom as uniform within a country 200+ years ago as a single cutover date would imply, and the very concept of "country" is anachronistic for the cutover dates in the 16th century. But at least ncal tries. :) To bring things full circle to the date(1) discussion, note that ncal was introduced so cal could remain bug-compatible.
Mike Stone