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 22:55:38martin.pantersetrecipients: + martin.panter, belopolsky, vstinner, ezio.melotti, flox, docs@python, python-dev
2016-01-02 22:55:38martin.pantersetmessageid: <1451775338.69.0.688440701936.issue13305@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-01-02 22:55:38martin.panterlinkissue13305 messages
2016-01-02 22:55:38martin.pantercreate