One Finish and German developer agree that month year is a stupid
order, the French and British guys disagree and the only natural
choice left is to make it understand ISO style.
coded meaning of 1752/09/03 is only a default, and that everything is
now calculated dynamically.
You can now use -R reform-spec to specify an alternate reform. Read
the fine (new) man page for details on this. There is also a new -r
option which will make cal print the month (or year, if -y is also
given) in which the Gregorian Reform started. I say started only
because if you apply the reform at 9999/1/22, a chunk of January is
knocked out, February and March are missing entirely, and April starts
on the 5th. The use of -r with -y does pretty much what you'd expect.
Also, implement -d day-of-week so that you can tell cal to start the
week on something other that a Sunday. This addresses PR bin/8539 at
long last.
present in the displayed calender. It uses libtermcap to discover the
proper sequences to turn on bold, or uses overstriking if output is
not to a terminal. If you use two -h options with terminal output,
the date is presented in reverse video instead of bold.
Next we'll have to make the Gregorian gap vary with TZ settings, since
the current method (do it only for September 1752) is decidely
Anglo-centric. ;-P
Britain and its colonies eliminated 11 days (not 10), following
September 2, 1752.
From "A.D. 1751. Anno vicesimo quarto GEORGII II. CAP. XXIII.
An Act for Regulating the Commencement of the Year; and for
Correcting the Calendar now in Use.":
"... and that the natural Day next immediately following the said 2nd Day of
*September* [1752], shall be called, reckoned and accounted to be the 14th
Day of *September*, omitting for that Time only the 11 intermediate nominal
Days of the common Calendar;
and that the several natural Days, which shall follow and succeed next after
the said 14th Day of *September*, shall be respectively called, reckoned and
numbered forwards in numerical Order from the said 14th Day of *September*,
according to the Order and Succession of Days now used in the present
Calendar; "
Added a caution note on using cal for very old dates.
Problem mentionned in PR 5215 by John Franklin (franklin@bev.net).
Thanks to Perry Metzger for his comments and for reviewing this man page.
kim