On 7/12/06, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > > On 7/12/06, Armin Rigo <arigo at tunes.org> wrote: > > I guess I'm going to side with Greg Black on his blog entry. > > I seem to recall that that particular one wass *not* an accidental > bug. I believe I fell over exactly the problem that Greg Black > complained about (or almost the same; maybe my problem was setting the > month and day to zero and formatting only the time :-) and tried to > convince the author to change it; but was told that the new behavior > was never documented and that the new behavior was somehow better; and > I didn't fight it further then. Do I remember this correctly? Does > anybody else recall? My recollection is that we found a way to cause a crash if improper values were used. We never said 0s were allowed in the docs and that it could mask bugs if you did use them and we supported them (e.g., setting 0 for January instead of 1 if you were thinking in terms of indexing at the time). So we said that values should be within the proper range and not above or below them. The python-dev Summary coverage can be found at http://www.python.org/dev/summary/2004-02-01_2004-02-29/#time-strftime-now-checks-its-argument-s-bounds. -Brett -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060712/afe7da0c/attachment.htm
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