[Patches] [ python-Patches-1639973 ] email.utils.parsedate documentation

[SourceForge.net]

Patches item #1639973, was opened at 2007-01-19 19:15
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by mark-roberts
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: Open
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: Mark Roberts (mark-roberts)
Date: 2007-03-09 11:49

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 04:15

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=849994
Originator: NO

I agree with Collin.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Collin Winter (collinwinter)
Date: 2007-03-08 12:36

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