Patches item #1639973, was opened at 2007-01-20 01:15 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by gbrandl You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1639973&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Documentation Group: Python 2.6 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Mark Roberts (mark-roberts) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: email.utils.parsedate documentation Initial Comment: See bug 1629566 (python.org/sf/1629566) for discussion. This patch eliminates any ambiguity in the documentation regarding which fields of the time tuple it refers to. This patch specifies the documentation in both librfc822.tex and emailutil.tex ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Georg Brandl (gbrandl) Date: 2007-03-09 10:15 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=849994 Originator: NO I agree with Collin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Collin Winter (collinwinter) Date: 2007-03-08 18:36 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1344176 Originator: NO Where do the "tm_wday", "tm_yday", "tm_isdst" names come from? I don't see them in the referenced RFC, nor anywhere else in the patched docs. Why not just make a note that 6, 7 and 8 are counted from zero? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1639973&group_id=5470 _______________________________________________ Patches mailing list Patches@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/patches
