Alexander Belopolsky <belopol...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
I am attaching a patch. While working on the patch, I noticed that although time.accept2dyear is documented as boolean, the current code expects int and treats any non-int including True as 0: >>> time.accept2dyear = True; time.asctime((99,) + (0,)*8) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> ValueError: year >= 1900 required >>> time.accept2dyear = 1; time.asctime((99,) + (0,)*8) 'Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 1999' This is clearly a bug. (Although Y2K note contradicts time.accept2dyear documentation.) Supporting year < 1900 would be a feature in my view, but I agree with SilentGhost that once we extended support to 5+ digit years, it is odd to keep year >= 1900 restriction. ---------- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file20260/issue10827.diff _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10827> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
