[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment: I would like to push this for 3.2. Recent discussions at issue10827 and on python-dev seem to favor removal of arbitrary limits on year range. -- nosy: +georg.brandl ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
kiorky kio...@cryptelium.net added the comment: We must not have the same point of view about new features and bugfixes... -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de added the comment: kiorky: see my msg55157. Python behaves correctly as it stands - raising the exception is fully intentional. It's not a bug that it gets raised; dates before 1900 are just not supported. Adding support for them is a new feature. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment: kiorky, Thank you for the updated patch, but since it implements a new feature, it cannot be applied to 2.x series. I am +1 on removing year 1900 limitation from datetime.strftime in 3.x, but you need to consider how this can be achieved in pure python datetime implementation which is now slated to be released in 3.2. See msg110792 above. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
kiorky kio...@cryptelium.net added the comment: This patch doesnt apply anymore on py26. Joining an updated patch. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file19157/strftime-pre-1900.patch ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment: Adding issue7989 as a dependency because one of the stated reasons for not calling system strftime from datetime directly is because pure python implementations cannot do the same. This of course can be resolved by exposing raw strftime in separate module (for example _time), but simply applying this patch before #7989 would mean that year 1900 would have to be disabled for pure python implementation tests. -- stage: - patch review superseder: - Add pure Python implementation of datetime module to CPython ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
Changes by Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net: -- dependencies: +Add pure Python implementation of datetime module to CPython superseder: Add pure Python implementation of datetime module to CPython - ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
I see this in py3k branch on MacOS X:
[GCC 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5646) (dot 1)] on darwin
Type help, copyright, credits or license for more information.
import datetime
datetime.date(1876, 2, 3).strftime('%Y-%m-%d')
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in module
ValueError: year=1876 is before 1900; the datetime strftime() methods require
year = 1900
I like the approach taken in the David's patch. The datetime module should
stop piggybacking on the time module.
--
assignee: - belopolsky
nosy: +belopolsky
versions: +Python 3.2
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org: -- nosy: +merwok ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
Changes by Skip Montanaro s...@pobox.com: -- nosy: -skip.montanaro ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
STINNER Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: The patch doesn't work on Python3 because Python3 changes time.strftime() for year 1900: if time.accept2dyear is not False (or not set), raise an error; otherwise convert 0..68 = 2000..2068, 69..99 = 1968..1999, or raise an error. -- nosy: +haypo ___ Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
David Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: I have a patch for this, but I don't know which platforms have the problem. On Linux, strftime seems to work fine. Attaching the patch as a work in progress... -- keywords: +patch nosy: +davidfraser Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file10253/strftime-pre-1900.patch _ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 _ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
David Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Which version of Python are you using? I could have sworn we just fixed this problem in CVS a couple weeks ago. This was on the latest Python 2.6 svn... but looking at the py3k branch with viewsvn the code is definitely still there too... The relevant commit seems to be r30224 in 2002: I give up: unless I write my own strftime by hand, datetime just can't be trusted with years before 1900, so now we raise ValueError if a date or datetime or datetimetz .strftime() method is called with a year before 1900. Of course I'm not dealing with any of this in the attached patch, but then I don't have the information on which platforms have the problem... but according to the above writing strftime by hand would be the only solution... _ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 _ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue1777412] Python's strftime dislikes years before 1900
Skip Montanaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment: Ah, I remember now. It was a special case for xmlrpclib to allow its Date objects to operate before 1900. _ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1777412 _ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
