Message324397
| Author |
p-ganssle |
| Recipients |
belopolsky, izbyshev, p-ganssle, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, taleinat, vstinner |
| Date |
2018年08月30日.18:08:40 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1535652520.37.0.56676864532.issue34481@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
@izbyshev That's totally fair and I wouldn't want to make it a condition of merging the existing fixes - I've already made great progress in fixing the time.strftime part as well.
The main reason it relates here is that I generally find the tests to be among the hardest part about writing a good PR, and if we can't make assertions about the behavior of strftime outputs, I think it makes it hard to prevent regressions. I figured if I can solve the problem all the way down the stack in one go, I might as well.
That said, Victor makes an *extremely* good point that this is an outsized effort for the bug it's fixing. No one really *needs* support for unpaired surrogates in their strftime as far as I can tell. The main reason I'm still working on it is that I'm curious to see if it's even possible to fix. |
|