Re: Is this really what we want?

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 <[e-mail]> 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'.]

        Thank you,
        Hugh
>