From: Kenny McCormack on 3 May 2010 08:49 In article <hrmf7b$36c$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou(a)hotmail.com> wrote: .... >But you have a point that in this case (where the date information >starts with field 1) it can as well be simplified as you proposed. Yes, it's convenient, but not really necessary. The whole point of ISO date format is that it is a specific instance of the general principle of ordering the information in a string from most significant on the left to least significant on the right, so that it sorts "correctly". My first thought on seeing this problem was that you should just concatenate the two fields together and then compare them. So, say, the date was in field 10 and the time in field 3, you would do: $10 " " $3 >= "2010-04-27 03:20:00" -- (This discussion group is about C, ...) Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood traumas of the participants...
From: Janis Papanagnou on 3 May 2010 11:49 Kenny McCormack schrieb: > [...] > > My first thought on seeing this problem was that you should just > concatenate the two fields together and then compare them. So, say, the > date was in field 10 and the time in field 3, you would do: > > $10 " " $3 >= "2010-04-27 03:20:00" Simple and most flexible. I like it. Janis
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 Prev: find: -exec: no terminating ";" or "+" Next: Displaying directory structure at command prompt |