Stream: fhirpath
Topic: GF#20004
Grahame Grieve (Feb 04 2019 at 02:43):
@Bryn Rhodes I don't understand why the T is needed:
Agreed, allow the use of the 'T' in a datetime literal to build a partial DateTime:
@2012T
@2012-01T
@2012-01-01T
Grahame Grieve (Feb 04 2019 at 02:43):
why not just @2012 ?
Grahame Grieve (Feb 04 2019 at 02:45):
also for GF#20013
Bryn Rhodes (Feb 04 2019 at 03:03):
The result type of @2012 is Date, but @2012T is DateTime
Bryn Rhodes (Feb 04 2019 at 03:04):
Without the T, there's no way to specify that you actually want a DateTime, you'd have to convert it.
Grahame Grieve (Feb 04 2019 at 03:05):
oh ok. that makes sense. can we make that clearer in the disposition?
Bryn Rhodes (Feb 04 2019 at 03:11):
Done
Grahame Grieve (Feb 04 2019 at 03:16):
thx
Brian Postlethwaite (Feb 04 2019 at 06:48):
So it's a datetime type without a time part?
Brian Postlethwaite (Feb 04 2019 at 06:48):
Is this to work around the issues of type comparisons?
Bryn Rhodes (Feb 04 2019 at 16:10):
It's to make sure that we have a literal that covers both Date and DateTime.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
