Paul Ganssle <p.gans...@gmail.com> added the comment: Hi Abhisek,
This is actually the expected / intended behavior, and it is documented under "strptime() and strftime() behavior": https://docs.python.org/3/library/datetime.html#strftime-strptime-behavior (which is linked to by the time.strftime documentation: https://docs.python.org/3/library/datetime.html#datetime.datetime.strftime . The relevant section is: For time objects, the format codes for year, month, and day should not be used, as time objects have no such values. If they’re used anyway, 1900 is substituted for the year, and 1 for the month and day. If I were designing `datetime.time.strftime` from scratch, my instinct would be to throw an error in this case, but my philosophy on parsing interfaces tends towards the stricter side. At this point, I think it would do more harm than good to change this behavior. I imagine that the motivation is something like the Robustness Principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle ), but I wasn't involved in the original design so I can't be sure. Thank you for taking the time to make a bug report, it's very appreciated even when it turns out to not be a bug. ---------- resolution: -> not a bug stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38082> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
