On 29/05/2006 6:27 AM, Gerard Flanagan wrote:
> I don't think it's what you want but I had the following on file - it
> uses time.strptime() which I didn't know there was a problem with.
In 2.3, time.strptime became a pure-Python routine, thus losing its
dependency on the existence and correctn
On 29/05/2006 5:23 AM, Brendan wrote:
> Thanks John. I've discovered that datetime.strptime will be available
> in 2.5, (http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/modules.html) but your
> example will work in the meantime.
>
Only in the meantime? I would thought there was a good chance it would
cont
Brendan wrote:
> Thanks John. I've discovered that datetime.strptime will be available
> in 2.5, (http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/modules.html) but your
> example will work in the meantime.
>
> BJ
I don't think it's what you want but I had the following on file - it
uses time.strptime() whic
Thanks John. I've discovered that datetime.strptime will be available
in 2.5, (http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/modules.html) but your
example will work in the meantime.
BJ
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 28/05/2006 3:37 AM, Brendan wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I can't find the "Python Way" of writing a datetime instance to a
> string so that it can be easily parsed back again. time.strptime is
> apparantly not supported on some platforms, and time.time <==>
> datetime.utcfromtimestamp will cause proble
Hi All
I can't find the "Python Way" of writing a datetime instance to a
string so that it can be easily parsed back again. time.strptime is
apparantly not supported on some platforms, and time.time <==>
datetime.utcfromtimestamp will cause problems come 2038. Unfortunately
there don't seem to b
