Talk:Discordian date

From Rosetta Code
Revision as of 08:27, 21 January 2011 by Oenone (talk | contribs) (→‎Leap Years: add sig)

According to the wiki page, the Disscordian calendar corresponds exactly to the Gregorian calendar (with some contrarian disputes about corresponding to the Julian calendar). The significant difference is in naming.

It would be good for the task itself to specify the naming required, rather than requiring us to extract them from that wiki page.

But, also, if dates are represented numerically, the identity function is sufficient to convert a gregorian date to a discordian date, except that the year needs to be adjusted.

Thus, at present, this task is underspecified.

Actually it's a bit different in that it lacks months and instead splits the year into five seasons of 73 days each, St. Tib's intentionally being the odd one out and complicating a numerical sequential representation. It's linked to the Gregorian date apart from that, though (i.e. New Year's Day is identical, the number of days in a year is identical and the year has a static offset).
The naming isn't particularly important, though there's a convention to use them instead of representing the seasons by their ordinals.
I agree that the task description is incomplete, though. It'd probably be a good idea to at least specify the expected format ("$season $d, YOLD $yyyy"). --- 78.35.107.83 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
For now, I have updated the J implementation to use season ordinals, and to insert an imaginary day after the 59th of the first season, on leap years. --Rdm 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

--Rdm 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that simply linking over to a WP for even basic details makes for a bad description. Would someone create a template for marking such tasks, and then find and tag the tasks that do that? If the tagging is done first, more people can concurrently assist with actual cleanup. --Michael Mol 17:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Leap Years

According to wikipedia page, every fourth year is a leap year. This diverges from the Gregorian, which has special rules for years divisible by 100. Should the code respect this or just ignore it? --Oenone 08:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)