GNU bug report logs - #9794
24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z

Previous Next

Packages: emacs, w32;

Reported by: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>

Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 06:46:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Merged with 641

Found in versions 22.2, 23.0.60, 24.0.90

Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #83 received at 9794-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu, 641-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 9794-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
	jasonr <at> gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#9794: 24.0.90; `format-time-string' no good for %Z
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:17:40 -0700
> > I suggest format specifiers that let you alternatively do all 
> > of the following for the case of time zone names (i.e. "pretty"
> > names, not just %z numbers).
> > 
> > 1. Use only POSIX-compliant time-zone pretty names, which can 
> >    mean "" (empty - no available POSIX name).
> > 
> > 2. Use any available nonempty time-zone pretty names, with 
> >    priority to nonempty POSIX-compliant pretty names.
> > 
> > 3. Same as #2, but with priority to system-supplied names,
> >    even when a corresponding nonempty POSIX name is available.
> > 
> > 4. Use only nonempty POSIX-compliant pretty names, when 
> >    available, and fall back to what %z does in cases where the
> >    POSIX name is empty.
> > 
> > #2 and #3 would also fall back to %z when no nonempty name is 
> > available.
>
>...
> All the regressions were fixed, some by Paul in revision
> 106149, and the rest by revision 106162 I committed today.

Thanks to all for the fixes.

> My take on these options is that #3 is what you have after these last
> changes, #4 needs a simple test to decide whether to fall back to %z,
> and the rest are impractical, because there's no good way of mapping
> an arbitrary (possibly non-ASCII) string returned by Windows to the 1-
> or 3-letter zones from the short list allowed by RFC 822.

#3 was what I requested from the beginning, so I'm fine with that.

You fought #3 vehemently, defending #1 (which you now claim is "impractical"!),
but after 3 years you've apparently come 'round (to #3).  That's progress.  Thx
for the fix.





This bug report was last modified 13 years and 271 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.