> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Edward Gray II [mailto:james / grayproductions.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:53 AM
> To: ruby-core / ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: Is this really what we want?
> 
> 
> On Aug 8, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In message "Re: Is this really what we want?"
> >>     on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 05:08:43 +0900, James Edward Gray II
> >> <james / grayproductions.net> writes:
> >>
> >> |I'm investigating some recent breakage in FasterCSV and have
> >> tracking
> >> |it down to a change in the Date standard library.  Is this really
> >> the
> >> |desired behavior now:
> >> |
> >> |   $ ruby -r date -e 'p Date.parse("junk")'
> >> |   #<Date: 4908505/2,0,2299161>
> >> |
> >> |?
> >>
> >> I asked the author, and he told us it's a side effect of parse 
> >> accepting month name only.  The parse methods (both Date.parse and
> >> Time.parse) are not for validation.  Considering the complexity of
> >> date representation they accept, validation is nearly 
> impossible.   
> >> The
> >> author does not think it is worth the cost of implementing 
> more rigid 
> >> check.
> >>
> >> 							matz.
> >>
> >
> > Can we take that last sentence as an invitation for someone else to 
> > bear the implementation cost?  Does the author mean that 
> contributions 
> > would be welcome, or would he wish that people leave it alone? [I'm 
> > not volunteering just yet :-), just wondering 'where we are'.]
> 
> Boy, I sure hope so.  I mean, it did use to validate dates, so I'll  
> be recreating it in FCSV just to restore functionality unless 
> someone  
> steps up to the plate.

Perhaps we need a port of this, or something like it.

http://search.cpan.org/~gbarr/TimeDate-1.16/

I haven't looked at date2 or date4 (what happened to date3?) to see if
they offer different implementations of Date.parse.

Regards,

Dan


This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly 
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this communication 
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy 
all copies of the communication and any attachments.