[Python-ideas] strptime without second argument as an inverse to __str__

[Akira Li]

Please, don't put words in my mouth. To avoid Straw-man, quote me
directly in context. As I do with you in my messages.

Andrew Barnert
<abarnert at yahoo.com.dmarc.invalid> writes:

> Mixing up responses to an previous email you already responded to with
> the new one makes it harder to reply, but I'll try.
>
>
> On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:43 PM, Akira Li <4kir4.1i at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Andrew Barnert <abarnert at yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>>  On Aug 7, 2014, at 5:35, Akira Li <4kir4.1i at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Please, don't spread misinformation.
>>>>
>>>>  Among the explicit rfc 3339 design goals are simplicity and human
>>>>  readability.
>>>>
>>>>  Just read http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339 (for an rfc it is
>>>>  relatively short and readable).
>> ...
>>>  (And there's also a whole section of interpreting
>>>  "legacy"/"deprecated" 2-digit years and how you should
>> handle them.)
>>>
>>>  So, is the RFC "spreading misinformation" about itself?
>>
>> You are *obviously* wrong for the rfc 3339 Internet Date/Time Format
>> itself (used by __str__, isoformat -- relevant to the current topic).
>
>
> You accused me of "spreading misinformation" by saying that RFC 3339
> is more complicated than what Python's str generates. You also
> suggested that people often parse RFC 3339 with a simple strptime.

You said [1]:

  "RFC 3339 is still more complicated than just reversing Python's str
  or isoformat. IIRC (it's hard to check on my phone), it mandates that
  parsers should accept 2-digit years (including 3-digit or
  semicolon-and-two-digit years), lowercase T and Z, missing "-", and
  other things that you shouldn't generate but some code might."

[1]
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2014-August/028509.html

What I consider misinformation:

  "it mandates that parsers should accept 2-digit years (including
  3-digit or semicolon-and-two-digit years)" [Andrew Barnert]

  '"missing "-"' [Andrew Barnert]

   "and other things that you shouldn't generate but some code might."
   [Andrew Barnert]

I've already described it quote by quote in [2] with all the gory
details including a careful usage of MUST, SHOULD words from [rfc
2119]. 

[2]
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2014-August/028541.html
[rfc 2119] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

> I pointed out that the RFC itself clearly defines something more
> complicated than what Python's str generates, and that it can't be
> fully parsed by a simple strptime, and then added a parenthetical
> remark about support for 2-year dates.

It *is* obvious that the rfc is more complex than the str method e.g.,
the rfc supports 'T', 'Z' (default str doesn't generate them as far as I
know). 

But all specific details (except "lowercase T and Z") you provided in
the quote from [1] are wrong as described in [2]. What conclusions can
you draw about the whole statement after that?

> You cut out everything but the parenthetical remark, and replied to
> that as if it was the whole point of my message. And you even
> responded to nothing but the parenthetical 2-year comment in replies
> to completely separate sections of the message. I have no idea how to
> respond to that except to say: read it again.

I've read and reread [1]. I don't see what "other things" you are referring
to. To avoid ambiguity, could you use a direct quote and a link (as I've
demonstrated above)?


--
Akira