-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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[1] 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. Cheers [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/datatype-datetime.html#DATATYPE-DATETIME-INPUT - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlp3DdcACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYVkACdGVS1KtyDauTFi4S/tA97P6WG VIcAoIBuVtnGSURj7v7yho6aF1wmVCTE =WAbh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
