Message 125125 - Python tracker

Message125125

Author	Alexander.Belopolsky
Recipients	Alexander.Belopolsky, SilentGhost, Trundle, belopolsky, georg.brandl, l0nwlf, ned.deily, sandro.tosi, vstinner, wsanchez
Date	2011-01-02.23:22:42
SpamBayes Score	7.1550794e-08
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<AANLkTi=gMMzGZN_s=hj3oCu50dZqDja4obB9cbVfWVpH@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to	<1294010267.46.0.830315998728.issue8013@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>

Content
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Georg Brandl <report@bugs.python.org> wrote: .. > (What I mean is that overwriting \n or not, the code is unsafe, so the check must be > done beforehand. Why should that be left to 3.3?) Reading beyond a buffer is somewhat safer than writing, but I agree that checks must be done before calling asctime/ctime. I thought it would have to wait because it is a feature. Some Linux users may expect year 10000 to work. (Maybe as a sentinel value somewhere.) But you are the RM, so it is your call.

Content

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Georg Brandl <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
..
> (What I mean is that overwriting \n or not, the code is unsafe, so the check must be
> done beforehand.  Why should that be left to 3.3?)

Reading beyond a buffer is somewhat safer than writing, but I agree
that checks must be done before calling asctime/ctime.   I thought it
would have to wait because it is a feature.  Some Linux users may
expect year 10000 to work.  (Maybe as a sentinel value somewhere.)
But you are the RM, so it is your call.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2011-01-02 23:22:45	Alexander.Belopolsky	set	recipients: + Alexander.Belopolsky, georg.brandl, belopolsky, wsanchez, vstinner, ned.deily, Trundle, SilentGhost, sandro.tosi, l0nwlf
2011-01-02 23:22:42	Alexander.Belopolsky	link	issue8013 messages
2011-01-02 23:22:42	Alexander.Belopolsky	create