Subject: Re: Can we fix BYSETPOS?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:48:20 -0400

Jonathan replied:
>One further comment on why BYSETPOS is horribly broken.
>
>RECUR:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=100000000;BYSECOND=0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,
> 14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,
> 37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59;
>        BYSETPOS=-1
>
>is a legal RFC 2445 recurrence.  It expands to approximately three
>quadrillion events before BYSETPOS is applied.  Good luck...

Thanks but by my calculations the set is 60 instances long (one per 
second) and the set repeats every 100000000 years.  The BYSETPOS simply selects the instance at second 59 
making the rest obsolete really.  Hmm, does Jonathan has a pet Dino?

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: Jonathan Lennox <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 13:12:27 -0400 (EDT)

> making the rest obsolete really.  Hmm, does Jonathan has a pet Dino?

See, this is what I mean about BYSETPOS being confusing.

In RECUR:FREQ=MONTHLY;BYDAY=TU,TH;BYSETPOS=-1, the set is 8 - 10 instances
long, not 2.

So in my example above, the set is three quadrillion instances long, not
sixty.

How are these not analogous?

-- 
Jonathan Lennox
[email-masked]