Issue 1639973: email.utils.parsedate documentation - Python tracker (original) (raw)

Issue1639973

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

classification

Title:	email.utils.parsedate documentation
Type:	Stage:
Components:	Documentation	Versions:	Python 2.6

process

Status:	closed	Resolution:
Dependencies:		Superseder:
Assigned To:	collinwinter	Nosy List:	collinwinter, georg.brandl, mark-roberts
Priority:	normal	Keywords:	patch

Created on 2007-01-20 01:15 by mark-roberts, last changed 2022-04-11 14:56 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Files
File name	Uploaded	Description	Edit
bug_1629566_docs_only.patch	mark-roberts,2007-01-20 01:15	doc patch for librfc822 and emailutil

Messages (5)
msg51770 - (view)	Author: Mark Roberts (mark-roberts)	Date: 2007-01-20 01:15
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
msg51771 - (view)	Author: Collin Winter (collinwinter) *	Date: 2007-03-08 18:36
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?
msg51772 - (view)	Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) *	Date: 2007-03-09 10:15
I agree with Collin.
msg51773 - (view)	Author: Mark Roberts (mark-roberts)	Date: 2007-03-09 17:49
http://docs.python.org/lib/module-time.html
msg51774 - (view)	Author: Collin Winter (collinwinter) *	Date: 2007-03-09 18:12
Since the confusion stemmed from the ambiguous word "fields", I've changed it (r54243) to "indexes" which will make it perfectly clear where the count starts from.