<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 22 May 2013 20:16, Robert Elz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kre@munnari.oz.au" target="_blank">kre@munnari.oz.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><a href="mailto:random832@fastmail.us">random832@fastmail.us</a> said:<br>
| Since you can't define zones in terms of other zones, we don't even make it<br>
| easy for them to handle themselves.<br>
<br>
</div>You could also write an application (probably even just a script) that would<br>
do it that way as well - extracting parts of other zones and combining<br>
them together to make a new zone specification. Again, feel free.</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Why <i>don't</i> we support defining zones in terms of other zones? I presume someone has brought up the suggestion in the past.<br>
<br>I can certainly see both sides of that argument. We have several comments with "like America/New_York" etc. throughout the data which could simply be replaced with actual syntax to the same effect. This would cause zones to be linked, but only within the limited scope of certain temporal boundaries (with "max" being a valid boundary, of course). The obvious upside would be that there's only one place to change rules if they're modified later as a group. The obvious downside is that when rules change for only part of a group, it's more work to track all of the data down. We'd also want to be careful to limit chaining and especially avoid recursion.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Has there been a discussion on this before, and if so, can anyone who was around at the time recall its conclusions?<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>--<br>Tim Parenti<br>
</div>
</div></div>