Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 14:42:47 +0100
- From: <tomas@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 08:22:23AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> But a better parser would allow the same functionality, without
> being confusing, inconsistent, and hard to maintain. So
> yes, I'll stand by "complete misfeature".
While we do agree that datetime input formats are, at times,
ambiguous and generally a mess, generic datetime parsing
functionality *is* useful, and *can* be done (albeit sometimes
needing some recourse to "ambient information", which might
be provided by locale, e.g.).
Thus I do agree with your statement "it's messy", less so
with "it's useless" or "can't be done".
PostgreSQL gives a good working example of an implementation
which is useful.
But since `date' has to cater for backward compatibility, the
constraints are harder, I agree.
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----