Added support for toRelativeString() #13
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 2 commits
June 11, 2012 15:51
…ve time difference from the current time.
|
why aren't you doing the i18n stuff for this? thats one of the powers of this library. |
This was referenced Mar 31, 2013
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Added a method to the prototype called toRelativeString() per issue #10 (and #12)
Let me know if there's anything related to this that should or could be included. I thought about adding a second parameter to set the precision or something which might be useful if someone always wanted the date in years but also wanted a tenths fraction included.
Another use case I could see would be "X years Y months ago". Perhaps the first argument could be set up to take in a prints type formatted string and the function could detect the units by inspecting the closest proceeding word? Does anyone have any feelings about this ( @powmedia ) ?