Re: [Python-Dev] datetime's strftime implementation: by design or bug

2006-09-12 Thread Eric V. Smith
Anthony Baxter wrote: > Please log a bug - this is probably something suitable for fixing in 2.5.1. > At > the very least, if it's going to be limited to 127 characters, it should > check that and raise a more suitable exception. [First time sent from wrong address, sorry if this is a dupe.]

Re: [Python-Dev] datetime's strftime implementation: by design or bug

2006-09-11 Thread Anthony Baxter
Please log a bug - this is probably something suitable for fixing in 2.5.1. At the very least, if it's going to be limited to 127 characters, it should check that and raise a more suitable exception. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org h

Re: [Python-Dev] datetime's strftime implementation: by design or bug

2006-09-11 Thread Tim Peters
[Eric V. Smith] > [I hope this belongs on python-dev, since it's about the design of > something. But if not, let me know and I'll post to c.l.py.] > > I'm willing to file a bug report and patch on this, but I'd like to know > if it's by design or not. > > In datetimemodule.c, the function wrap_st

[Python-Dev] datetime's strftime implementation: by design or bug

2006-09-11 Thread Eric V. Smith
[I hope this belongs on python-dev, since it's about the design of something. But if not, let me know and I'll post to c.l.py.] I'm willing to file a bug report and patch on this, but I'd like to know if it's by design or not. In datetimemodule.c, the function wrap_strftime() insists that the