Message160637
This solution has some very undesirable properties - namely that Mar 1st is now less than Feb 29th!
It seems like the correct follow up fix would be to adjust the date of the returned struct_time back to 1900. The struct_time object doesn't have the validation issue, so this works fine. This pair of fixes then nicely circumvents the intermediate datetime object's checking, while providing a consistent end result. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-05-14 16:50:16 | Martin.Morrison | set | recipients:
+ Martin.Morrison, belopolsky, pitrou, vstinner, Arfrever, swalker, python-dev, hynek |
2012-05-14 16:50:16 | Martin.Morrison | set | messageid: <1337014216.65.0.583002633276.issue14157@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2012-05-14 16:50:16 | Martin.Morrison | link | issue14157 messages |
2012-05-14 16:50:15 | Martin.Morrison | create | |
|