Re: [PATCH]: Re: Date processing should be more flexible

From: Norbert Unterberg <nunterberg_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2005-07-05 22:49:15 CEST

05 Jul 2005 14:19:15 -0500, kfogel@collab.net <kfogel@collab.net>:

> Christopher Ness <chris@nesser.org> writes:
> > > Is this stricter-than-ANSI parsing intentional?
> >
> > I believe it is.
> > As for why, I'm not sure - but have some opinions.

Just for clarification. When asking why the date parser is stricter
that ANSI-C I did not mean the different date representations, but I
was refering to the fact that ANSI-C allows a date like 2005-01-35 (it
will be interpreted as 2005-02-04), but subversion rejects it. Not
important, though.

Norbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 5 23:39:15 2005

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: kfogel_at_collab.net: "Re: [PATCH] Partial fix for Issue #443: post-commit hook script (error) output lost."
Previous message: Ben Collins-Sussman: "Re: --non-interactive still invokes editor?"
In reply to: kfogel_at_collab.net: "Re: [PATCH]: Re: Date processing should be more flexible"
Next in thread: Christopher Ness: "Re: [PATCH]: Re: Date processing should be more flexible"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]