Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: >>>MO(0) shouldn't be used as it makes no sense, but is the same >>>as MO(+1) which is the same as MO(1). >> >>So there is a hole at 0. Something about that smells wrong. > > > If you discover what, please tell me. :-) > The current version feels odd to me as well. I would naturally interpret it along the lines of: MO = MO(0) = this Monday = today, or the nearest Monday in the future. Then MO(+1) would be the next Monday after MO(0). In other words, the parameter becomes a standard offset from the current week, rather than using a positive 1-based count, and a negative 0-based offset. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | Brisbane, Australia Email: ncoghlan at email.com | Mobile: +61 409 573 268
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4