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  
>> <[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'.]

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.

James Edward Gray II