I agree except that people may expect yy-mm-dd to truncate, likely one of the reasons for the ccyy-mm-dd strict form. Where yy is defined as the two digit year.
On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 11:51:14 AM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > The safest option is probably to raise an error. > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jacob Quinn <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Hmmmmm.......it's not entirely clear to me what we should do here. >> >> On the one hand, when you ask to have the typemax(Date) formatted, it's >> currently doing what you asked, "formatting the year with 4 digits". >> Because your year in this case is greater than 4 digits, that results in >> truncation, which probably isn't what you want. But is it ok to give you >> all the digits even though you only asked for 4? I'd appreciate any other >> thoughts/input on this. >> >> I do think the Date/DateTime parsing/formatting code needs another once >> over to polish it up, so any ideas on allowing more >> flexibility/functionality would be appreciated. >> >> -Jacob >> >> >> >> On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-6, Michael Francis wrote: >>> >>> It seems that there is an issue with typemax of dates and string >>> representation >>> >>> julia> using Dates >>> >>> >>> julia> Dates.format(typemax( Date ),"yyyy-mm-dd" ) >>> "1149-12-31" >>> >>> >>> julia> typemax( Date ) >>> 252522163911149-12-31 >>> >>> >>> julia> Dates.format(typemax( Date ),"yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-mm-dd" ) >>> "252522163911149-12-31" >>> >>> This hidden truncation seems dangerous. Has anybody else seen this ? >>> >> >
