On 7/12/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/12/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 7/12/06, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I guess I'm going to side with Greg Black on his blog entry. > > > > I seem to recall that that particular one wass *not* an accidental > > bug. I believe I fell over exactly the problem that Greg Black > > complained about (or almost the same; maybe my problem was setting the > > month and day to zero and formatting only the time :-) and tried to > > convince the author to change it; but was told that the new behavior > > was never documented and that the new behavior was somehow better; and > > I didn't fight it further then. Do I remember this correctly? Does > > anybody else recall? > > > My recollection is that we found a way to cause a crash if improper values > were used. We never said 0s were allowed in the docs and that it could mask > bugs if you did use them and we supported them ( e.g., setting 0 for January > instead of 1 if you were thinking in terms of indexing at the time). So we > said that values should be within the proper range and not above or below > them. > > The python-dev Summary coverage can be found at > http://www.python.org/dev/summary/2004-02-01_2004-02-29/#time-strftime-now-checks-its-argument-s-bounds
Thanks for confirming memory! So it was an intentional regression; "bugs happen" doesn't apply in this case. And an unfortunate regression at that -- not because one guy writes a silly blog entry about it, but because it breaks real code -- undocumented be damned. Are we going to fix it, without allowing those crashes again? -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
