Gustavo Niemeyer wrote: > Some people claim that this is "dangerous", since there are > ambiguous dates, like "03-03-03". I don't think 03-03-03 is very ambigious, maybe 03-04-05 would be a better example ;-) > In my opinion, this is completely > non-sense, since dateutil's parsing routine has a well defined, > documented, and simple behavior. If you're parsing US dates, the default > is ok. If you're parsing brazilian dates, pass it "dayfirst=1" and > you're done. What other ways would you parse it!? Year first, perhaps, but I think it would be yyyy-mm-dd instead of yy-mm-dd then. But perhaps it would be nice to enable a (surpressable, of course) warning when a date is multi-parsable...? > Ahh.. of course. > Perhaps you'd prefer to say "%a, %d %b %Y %H:%M:%S %z" than > "dayfirst=1", since it's a lot more obvious what you're parsing, isn't > it? ;-) It may be faster. Gerrit. -- Weather in Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Netherlands 13/03 14:55 UTC: 10.0°C Few clouds mostly cloudy wind 9.8 m/s SW (-2 m above NAP) -- Asperger's Syndrome - a personal approach: http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/english/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4