Message304620
This seems very useful to me. I very frequently advise people *against* using dateutil.parser (despite my conflict of interest as maintainer of dateutil) for well-known formats, but the problem frequently comes up of, "what should I do when I have date created by isoformat()?", to which there's no clean satisfying answer other than, "use dateutil.parser even though you know the format."
I think the strptime page that Mario linked to is evidence that the %z directive is *intended* to match against -HH:MM, and so that might be the most "standard" solution.
That said, I somewhat prefer the granularity of the GNU date extensions %z, %:z and %::z, since this allows downstream users to be stricter about what they are willing to accept. I think either approach is defensible, but that *something* should be done soon, preferably for the 3.7 release. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2017-10-19 13:56:11 | p-ganssle | set | recipients:
+ p-ganssle, martin.panter, mariocj89, pablogsal |
2017-10-19 13:56:11 | p-ganssle | set | messageid: <1508421371.76.0.213398074469.issue31800@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2017-10-19 13:56:11 | p-ganssle | link | issue31800 messages |
2017-10-19 13:56:11 | p-ganssle | create | |
|