Author Alexander.Belopolsky
Recipients Alexander.Belopolsky, SilentGhost, Trundle, belopolsky, georg.brandl, l0nwlf, ned.deily, sandro.tosi, vstinner, wsanchez
Date 2011-01-02.23:43:12
SpamBayes Score 4.25832e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Georg Brandl <> wrote:
> You cannot have both: a safe implementation and the correct behavior with glibc
> (not Linux!) -- except if you start special-casing.  Not sure that's worth it.
That's the reason why this and the related ctime issue were lingering
for so long.

My plan was to pick the low-hanging fruit (the null check) for 3.3 and
leave proper bounds checking and possibly switch to reentrant APIs for
the next release.   There is a long tradition in keeping OS functions'
wrappers thin with an expectation that application programmers will
know the limitations/quirks of their target OSes.  Given that datetime
module does not have these issues, I don't see this as "must fix."
Date User Action Args
2011-01-02 23:43:16Alexander.Belopolskysetrecipients: + Alexander.Belopolsky, georg.brandl, belopolsky, wsanchez, vstinner, ned.deily, Trundle, SilentGhost, sandro.tosi, l0nwlf
2011-01-02 23:43:12Alexander.Belopolskylinkissue8013 messages
2011-01-02 23:43:12Alexander.Belopolskycreate