Message257383
| Author | martin.panter |
|---|---|
| Recipients | belopolsky, docs@python, ezio.melotti, flox, martin.panter, python-dev, vstinner |
| Date | 2016-01-02.22:55:38 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1451775338.69.0.688440701936.issue13305@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
At the bottom of <https://docs.python.org/dev/library/time.html#time.strftime> it suggests that this four-digit field width specifier is not portable. Does that also hold for the datetime version? It seems like a bad idea to recommend an unportable workaround for a portability problem. Also, in the patch it is not clear if you are referring to strptime(), strftime(), or both. On Linux, datetime.strptime(..., "%4Y") fails for me. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2016-01-02 22:55:38 | martin.panter | set | recipients: + martin.panter, belopolsky, vstinner, ezio.melotti, flox, docs@python, python-dev |
| 2016-01-02 22:55:38 | martin.panter | set | messageid: <1451775338.69.0.688440701936.issue13305@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016-01-02 22:55:38 | martin.panter | link | issue13305 messages |
| 2016-01-02 22:55:38 | martin.panter | create | |