[Patches] [ python-Patches-1639973 ] email.utils.parsedate documentation
SourceForge.net
noreply at sourceforge.net
Fri Mar 9 19:13:12 CET 2007
Patches item #1639973, was opened at 2007-01-19 20:15
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by collinwinter
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1639973&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Documentation
Group: Python 2.6
>Status: Closed
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Mark Roberts (mark-roberts)
Assigned to: Collin Winter (collinwinter)
Summary: email.utils.parsedate documentation
Initial Comment:
See bug 1629566 (python.org/sf/1629566) for discussion. This patch eliminates any ambiguity in the documentation regarding which fields of the time tuple it refers to.
This patch specifies the documentation in both librfc822.tex and emailutil.tex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Collin Winter (collinwinter)
Date: 2007-03-09 13:12
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1344176
Originator: NO
Since the confusion stemmed from the ambiguous word "fields", I've changed
it (r54243) to "indexes" which will make it perfectly clear where the count
starts from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Mark Roberts (mark-roberts)
Date: 2007-03-09 12:49
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1591633
Originator: YES
http://docs.python.org/lib/module-time.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Georg Brandl (gbrandl)
Date: 2007-03-09 05:15
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=849994
Originator: NO
I agree with Collin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Collin Winter (collinwinter)
Date: 2007-03-08 13:36
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1344176
Originator: NO
Where do the "tm_wday", "tm_yday", "tm_isdst" names come from? I don't see
them in the referenced RFC, nor anywhere else in the patched docs. Why not
just make a note that 6, 7 and 8 are counted from zero?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1639973&group_id=5470
More information about the Patches
mailing list