Re: encode-time vs decode-time

[Paul Eggert]

Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> I agree; calling these things encoded/decoded time isn't very clear
> terminology.  "calendrical" is a mouthful, though.  And "calendar" would
> imply that it belongs in the calendar package, perhaps...

I used "calendrical" rather than "calendar" to try to avoid that implication 
(also, because os.texi already called these broken-down timestamps "calendrical 
data"). But perhaps "calendrical" isn't far enough away from "calendar".

The POSIX tradition is to call these timestamps "broken-down time", and that is 
what glibc calls them too. How about if we use that name instead? It would help 
to be more consistent with other GNU code.