[issue3269] strptime() makes an error concerning second in arg

[Neven Goršić]

Neven Goršić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:

- My original issue was that time.strptime() makes difference between 61 and
62 seconds
- 17h AM, 78 s, 128min everyone can easly transform correctly, I just wanted
to use function for
  boundarie checking: rising error for 62 sec and not for 61 is confusing!
- I just wanted to point out that Python should be consistent: to provide
the same behaviour for 60,61 and 62 sec.

The conclusion is over as far as I am concerned.
I got the picture (you standpoint), and I hope, you too.

Thank you, once again,

Regards

     Neven

----------------------

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
> Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
>
> Closing as invalid, two reasons:
>
> - Your original issue was that time.strptime() didn't allow 62 seconds,
> not that it allowed 60 or 61.
>
> - If you use it to validate input... how do you actually know that
> 03/25/2012 17:13:61 AM' is an invalid date?
>
> I suggest to bring this issue in the python list if you have further
> doubts.
>
> Thank you!!
>
> ----------
> resolution:  -> invalid
> status: open -> closed
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3269>
> _______________________________________
>

Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file10804/unnamed

_______________________________________
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue3269>
_______________________________________
- My original issue was that time.strptime() makes difference between 61 and 62 
seconds<br>- 17h AM, 78 s, 128min everyone can easly transform correctly, I 
just wanted to use function for<br>&nbsp; boundarie checking: rising error for 
62 sec and not for 61 is confusing!<br>
- I just wanted to point out that Python should be consistent: to provide the 
same behaviour for 60,61 and 62 sec.<br><br>The conclusion is over as far as I 
am concerned.<br>I got the picture (you standpoint), and I hope, you too.<br>
<br>Thank you, once again,<br><br>Regards<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
Neven<br><br>----------------------<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 
3, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Facundo Batista &lt;<a href="mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 
204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
Facundo Batista &lt;<a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]</a>&gt; added the comment:<br>
<br>
</div>Closing as invalid, two reasons:<br>
<br>
- Your original issue was that time.strptime() didn&#39;t allow 62 seconds,<br>
not that it allowed 60 or 61.<br>
<br>
- If you use it to validate input... how do you actually know that<br>
03/25/2012 17:13:61 AM&#39; is an invalid date?<br>
<br>
I suggest to bring this issue in the python list if you have further doubts.<br>
<br>
Thank you!!<br>
<br>
----------<br>
resolution: &nbsp;-&gt; invalid<br>
status: open -&gt; closed<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
_______________________________________<br>
Python tracker &lt;<a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]</a>&gt;<br>
&lt;<a href="http://bugs.python.org/issue3269"; 
target="_blank">http://bugs.python.org/issue3269</a>&gt;<br>
_______________________________________<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com