Skip to content

WIP: bpo-1100942: Add datetime.time.strptime and datetime.date.strptime #5578

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
matrixise wants to merge 16 commits into from
Closed

WIP: bpo-1100942: Add datetime.time.strptime and datetime.date.strptime #5578

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
16 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ad5ffab
bpo-1100942: Add datetime.time.strptime and datetime.date.strptime
matrixise Feb 7, 2018
50606eb
Follow the PEP7 for the C Code
matrixise May 15, 2018
ab5030f
Remove unused formats
matrixise May 15, 2018
07fb326
Use subtest for the tests
matrixise Oct 17, 2018
010ac8b
Fix the signatures
matrixise Oct 25, 2018
5b58fc1
Update with the recommendation of @pganssle
matrixise Oct 25, 2018
8353a65
Update
matrixise Nov 4, 2018
cff74a9
Add use case where we generate an exception
matrixise Nov 11, 2018
f92a799
Add the Py_UNUSED(ignore) for datetime_gettime & datetime_getdate
matrixise Nov 11, 2018
4c4a7cc
Add a link to the strtime() and strptime() behaviour
matrixise Mar 6, 2019
b006172
Update the blurb entry and add an entry in the Doc/whatsnew/3.8.rst
matrixise Mar 6, 2019
ff7487f
Fix doc
matrixise Mar 6, 2019
a048f0e
Convert the _check_invalid_datetime_spec to the C-API
matrixise Mar 18, 2019
9ac0af4
Support tuple and list for the specs
matrixise Mar 18, 2019
a952bb7
_datetimemodule._check_invalid_datetime_specs only accepts tuple and not
matrixise Mar 24, 2019
412aea2
Fix the code with the recommendation of Martin Panter
matrixise Mar 24, 2019
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
Fix the signatures
  • Loading branch information
@matrixise
matrixise committed Mar 22, 2019
commit 010ac8ba36ce2df7ddfeeac81b2796ab169125ba
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions Modules/_datetimemodule.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6084,15 +6084,15 @@ datetime_timestamp(PyDateTime_DateTime *self, PyObject *Py_UNUSED(ignored))
}

static PyObject *
datetime_getdate(PyDateTime_DateTime *self, PyObject *Py_UNUSED(ignored))
datetime_getdate(PyDateTime_DateTime *self)
{
return new_date(GET_YEAR(self),
GET_MONTH(self),
GET_DAY(self));
}

static PyObject *
datetime_gettime(PyDateTime_DateTime *self, PyObject *Py_UNUSED(ignored))

@pganssle pganssle Nov 4, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know why this PyObject *Py_UNUSED(ignored) is here, so per Chesterton's Fence, I'm not comfortable removing it. Any insight as to why it is here and what the consequences will be in removing it?

Possibly it will be a breaking change in the C ABI?

@pganssle pganssle Nov 4, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

According to git blame, this is to silence a warning in gcc8. Is this still relevant @siddhesh @serhiy-storchaka?

Edit: Looking closer, the merged PR is from April, so I'm guessing it is, but now I'm wondering if this will break the C ABI the other way.

@serhiy-storchaka serhiy-storchaka Nov 5, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, datetime_gettime should have two arguments, the second is ignored.

datetime_gettime(PyDateTime_DateTime *self)
{
return new_time(DATE_GET_HOUR(self),
DATE_GET_MINUTE(self),
Expand Down