Re: Is %z broken for return values of time.gmtime()?

Path	csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!nerim.net!novso.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path	<random832@fastmail.us>
X-Original-To	python-list@python.org
Delivered-To	python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status	OK 0.006
X-Spam-Evidence	'H': 0.99; 'S': 0.00; '16,': 0.03; 'dst': 0.09; 'received:internal': 0.09; 'python': 0.11; 'dst,': 0.16; 'message- id:@webmail.messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'received:10.202': 0.16; 'received:10.202.2': 0.16; 'received:10.202.2.212': 0.16; 'received:66.111': 0.16; 'received:66.111.4': 0.16; 'received:66.111.4.27': 0.16; 'received:messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'received:out3-smtp.messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'subject:broken': 0.16; 'subject:values': 0.16; 'timestamp': 0.16; 'utc': 0.16; 'utc,': 0.16; 'utc.': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'bit': 0.19; '(but': 0.19; 'platforms': 0.22; 'mon,': 0.24; 'sort': 0.25; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'michael': 0.29; 'skip:( 20': 0.30; '+0100,': 0.31; 'argue': 0.31; 'sep': 0.31; 'another': 0.32; 'not.': 0.33; 'maybe': 0.34; 'problem': 0.35; 'received:66': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'add': 0.35; 'in.': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'list': 0.37; 'received:10': 0.37; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'recent': 0.39; 'does': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'either': 0.39; 'according': 0.40; 'from:no real name:2**0': 0.61; 'introduced': 0.61; 'header:Message-Id:1': 0.63; 'information': 0.63; 'provide': 0.64; 'here': 0.66; 'reverse': 0.68; 'proposal.': 0.84; '\xe2\x80\xa6': 0.84; '2013,': 0.91
DKIM-Signature	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.us; h= message-id:from:to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:in-reply-to:references:subject:date; s=mesmtp; bh= 8tZSm1iZ6qwcqD6qYucGeGLyibQ=; b=GHfuZuzlPQa+Nc0mw7npbnDnHcR0uvQl aSJtneg+lY+Fxe8AMQwRwPU5ndz8s2wI2wyxzNLt/SThfUYL78csoIZ1kFSJEft+ PCgVdKnJ7djE0LBwJEaVXnH3ZfLpZw8GFdeEDjCJrHEb0f6eHrPE2YteIn9ffs+M KXq2F+3wwjQ=
DKIM-Signature	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:from:to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:date; s=smtpout; bh=8tZSm1iZ6qwcqD6qYucGeGLyibQ=; b=Jee ITZhusURb81TEfTC1hsP7JFl1uYhwpOqARr/jGVkJAvZPxYHFowVndLcjHhxkP2w zs8KRt51pSdMR2sPpVKc0ImbwJ46RgyjgvJlSsYeamV+P5MB8Gi/ImXdR4XvCbxD 1vQt3L44DJJQI9rnycvjgmD8B1QIDgdOvsDxM4L0=
X-Sasl-Enc	VtO+kAZc3EIJDZYIo+jrSUalSqkjkJG7rqWpVpfJGTVw 1379422084
From	random832@fastmail.us
To	python-list@python.org
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding	quoted-printable
Content-Type	text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer	MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-d310b333
In-Reply-To	<AFCFEAA4-5D61-4318-B737-AA7BDEDBAF80@gmail.com>
References	<3C2755B3-2478-45E1-88F5-9FD961F2B1BD@gmail.com> <1379354161.1707.22675889.2647208B@webmail.messagingengine.com> <AFCFEAA4-5D61-4318-B737-AA7BDEDBAF80@gmail.com>
Subject	Re: Is %z broken for return values of time.gmtime()?
Date	Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:48:04 -0400
X-BeenThere	python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version	2.1.15
Precedence	list
List-Id	General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive	<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post	<mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help	<mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.65.1379422087.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
Lines	26
NNTP-Posting-Host	2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace	1379422087 news.xs4all.nl 16002 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:41431
X-Complaints-To	abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.python:54290

Show key headers only | View raw

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 16:55, Michael Schwarz wrote:
> On 2013-W38-1, at 19:56, random832@fastmail.us wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 9:15, Michael Schwarz wrote:
> >> According to the documentation of time.gmtime(), it returns a struct_time
> >> in UTC, but %z is replaced by +0100, which is the UTC offset of my OS’s
> >> time zone without DST, but DST is currently in effect here (but was not
> >> at the timestamp passed to gmtime()).
> > 
> > The struct_time type does not include information about what timezone it
> > is in.
> 
> Uhm … Python 3.3 introduced the tm_gmtoff member of struct_time, which
> contains the offset to UTC.

I don't see it. Maybe it is not available on platforms that do not
provide it? Python 3.3.2 (v3.3.2:d047928ae3f6, May 16 2013, 00:06:53)
[MSC v.1600 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32)

I would argue that it _should_ be, and that it should populate it with 0
in gmtime or either with timezone/altzone or by some sort of reverse
calculation in localtime, but it is not. Another problem to add to my
list of reasons for my recent python-ideas proposal.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Is %z broken for return values of time.gmtime()? random832@fastmail.us - 2013-09-17 08:48 -0400
  Re: Is %z broken for return values of time.gmtime()? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2013-09-18 15:01 +0300

csiph-web