On Thu, Oct 19, 2017, at 10:06, Paul G wrote: > The argument for expanding the definition of %z that I find strongest is > that according to the linux man pages ( > http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/strptime.3.html ), while %z > generates +-HHMM in strftime, strptime is supposed to match "An > RFC-822/ISO 8601 standard timezone specification",and ISO 8601 uses > +-HH:MM, so if we're following those linux pages, we should be accepting > the version with the colon.
For whatever it's worth glibc strptime on linux does *not* in fact accept +HH:MM, and if it is passed, it silently interprets, say, -05:30 as -05 (and :30 remains in the string for subsequent directives to consume). Testing with an offset with zero minutes at the end of the string does not account for this, which may be why some people in the bug comments reported that it did support it. > The argument that I find most compelling for adding a %:z directive are: > > 1. maintains the symmetry between strftime and strptime > 2. allows users to be stricter about their datetime format > 3. has precedent in that GNU's `date` command accepts %z, %:z and > %::z formats Just to be clear, date accepts them on input through date -d (which does not use strptime or posix getdate, but its own internal parse_datetime function) > Can we establish some consensus on which should be done so that it can be > implemented? I do think it should be done, but if so it may be reasonable to talk about implementing a portable version of time.strptime that will also implement this feature. _______________________________________________ Datetime-SIG mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/datetime-sig The PSF Code of Conduct applies to this mailing list: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
