Message299333
As the original author of the predecessor bug report (issue 15873) in 2012, I would suggest that there's too much bikeshedding here. I filed this bug because there was no usable ISO8601 date parser available. PyPi contained four slightly different buggy ones, and three more versions were found later.
I suggested following RFC3339, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", section 5.6, which specifies a clear subset of ISO8601. Five years later, I suggest just going with that. Fancier variations belong in non-standard libraries.
Date parsing should not be platform-dependent. Using an available C library was convenient, but not portable.
Let's get this done. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2017-07-27 18:31:45 | nagle | set | recipients:
+ nagle, gvanrossum, tim.peters, barry, jcea, roysmith, belopolsky, vstinner, jwilk, mcepl, eric.araujo, Arfrever, r.david.murray, davydov, cvrebert, karlcow, SilentGhost, perey, flying sheep, mihaic, aymeric.augustin, Roman.Evstifeev, berker.peksag, martin.panter, piotr.dobrogost, kirpit, ztane, Anders.Hovmöller, jstasiak, Eric.Hanchrow, deronnax, pbryan, shanmbic, sirex, sonots |
2017-07-27 18:31:45 | nagle | set | messageid: <1501180305.13.0.745366455315.issue24954@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2017-07-27 18:31:45 | nagle | link | issue24954 messages |
2017-07-27 18:31:44 | nagle | create | |
|