From: Brian Candler <b.candler@...>
Date: 2009-04-15T18:30:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Date.parse 1.8 vs 1.9

Roger Pack wrote:
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/634
> treats to some background of it.  But doesn't explain this oddity 
> [unless it is just Ruby saying "you are running into danger by even 
> attempting to parse dd/dd/dddd because the first two dd's could 
> theoretically later come back to bite you" [?]

It would be silly if 4/30/2009 were parsed as m=4,d=30,y=2009
but 4/5/2009 were parsed as d=4,m=5,y=2009
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.