Message 290708 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	vstinner
Recipients	Eli Collins, Jordon Phillips, belopolsky, dstufft, lemburg, python-dev, vstinner
Date	2017-03-28.13:11:33
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1490706693.58.0.115402095967.issue29100@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
m-parry reported the issue #29921 "datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions". He is right, the C API of Python 3.6.1 is now stricter than Python 2.7 and 3.5. The C API doesn't allow anymore to create datetime objects outside the [datetime.datetime.min; datetime.datetime.max] range (what I would call "invalid" datetime objects). I closed the bug as NOT A BUG since I consider that it's a deliberate design choice and not a regression.

m-parry reported the issue #29921 "datetime validation is stricter in 3.6.1 than previous versions". He is right, the C API of Python 3.6.1 is now stricter than Python 2.7 and 3.5. The C API doesn't allow anymore to create datetime objects outside the [datetime.datetime.min; datetime.datetime.max] range (what I would call "invalid" datetime objects). I closed the bug as NOT A BUG since I consider that it's a deliberate design choice and not a regression.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2017-03-28 13:11:33	vstinner	set	recipients: + vstinner, lemburg, belopolsky, python-dev, dstufft, Eli Collins, Jordon Phillips
2017-03-28 13:11:33	vstinner	set	messageid: <1490706693.58.0.115402095967.issue29100@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2017-03-28 13:11:33	vstinner	link	issue29100 messages
2017-03-28 13:11:33	vstinner	create