[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2012-05-25 Thread R. David Murray
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: We ended up deciding to keep backward compatibility and add datetime support as a new API. All of these changes are now checked in to default. (See issue 665194, as well as issue 12586.) -- resolution: - duplicate stage:

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-12-27 Thread R. David Murray
Changes by R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com: -- versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 3.2 ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9864 ___ ___

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-28 Thread R. David Murray
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: Thanks, Jeffrey. I've applied your patch (with minor doc tweaks) to the email6 branch. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9864

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-27 Thread Jeffrey Finkelstein
Jeffrey Finkelstein jeffrey.finkelst...@gmail.com added the comment: Here's a patch for the python-email6 branch. It seemed to make sense to remove parsedate_tz() and mktime_tz() here, since the parsedate() function now returns a datetime object, including timezone information (if it was

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-24 Thread R. David Murray
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: http://launchpad.net/python-email6 -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9864 ___

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-22 Thread Jeffrey Finkelstein
Jeffrey Finkelstein jeffrey.finkelst...@gmail.com added the comment: Where does email6 live? -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9864 ___

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-21 Thread Alexander Belopolsky
Alexander Belopolsky belopol...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment: I've added #9909 as a dependency, but IMO it is less likely to be accepted than this feature request. On this issue, I would much rather see email package to start using datetime objects to represent time rather than

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-21 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: On this issue, I would much rather see email package to start using datetime objects to represent time rather than named or unnamed tuples. I agree on the principle, but I don't know if it's acceptable with regards to compatibility. It's up to

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-21 Thread Barry A. Warsaw
Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org added the comment: It does make sense, and email6 is like Python 3 in the sense that backward compatibility is not a priority. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9864

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-21 Thread R. David Murray
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: Yes, email6 should make use of datetime objects. For email5 Antoine's proposal is better, but the question is will it happen before 3.2 beta :) -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-20 Thread Éric Araujo
Changes by Éric Araujo mer...@netwok.org: -- nosy: +eric.araujo ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9864 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-20 Thread Jeffrey Finkelstein
Jeffrey Finkelstein jeffrey.finkelst...@gmail.com added the comment: If the changes I propose in issue9909 are implemented (briefly: a calendar.dayofyear() function), the following patch (with documentation and tests) should fill in the missing fields in the returned tuple. Note that the

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-20 Thread Jeffrey Finkelstein
Jeffrey Finkelstein jeffrey.finkelst...@gmail.com added the comment: I was not clear: the patch I provided REQUIRES the function I provided in issue9909. But I don't know how to change the Dependencies field in Roundup. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-15 Thread Antoine Pitrou
New submission from Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr: They both return raw tuples, which are not very intuitive to interpret: email.utils.parsedate_tz(Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:53:50 -0700 (PDT)) (2010, 9, 15, 9, 53, 50, 0, 1, -1, -25200) It would be much better if they returned some kind of

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-15 Thread Barry A. Warsaw
Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org added the comment: +1 -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9864 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue9864] email.utils.{parsedate, parsedate_tz} should have better return types

2010-09-15 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: By the way, while as mentioned in the docs “indexes 6, 7, and 8 of the result tuple are not usable”, perhaps it would be time to fix it? (at least for 6 and 7, aka. wday and yday) -- ___ Python