Hello
Time.parse ('16.8.2022 UTC') ignores UTC, I consider that as a bug,
althought nothing is said about the parsing capability.
Nevertheless there should be an error thrown, if a word could not be parsed.
I think it leads to hard-to-find erros, if the zone is beeing ignored
silently.
Opti
Dear Opti, you really need to understand the definition of "bug".
When a program claims to do A, and fails to do A because there is an error
in the implementation, that is a bug.
Otherwise, you may disagree with A, but that does not convert your desire
into a bug magically.
Now, the documentation of Time.parse says:
*This method **does not** function as a validator. If the input string does
not match valid formats strictly, you may get a cryptic result. Should
consider to use `Time.strptime` instead of this method as possible.*
If you believe Time.parse should do something else, please go to
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/.
Xavier
I anticipate that the Ruby community would much appreciate the time and
effort you invest to correct this errant behavior.
On 16.08.22 10:48, Die Optimisten wrote:
Hello
Time.parse ('16.8.2022 UTC') ignores UTC, I consider that as a bug,
althought nothing is said about the parsing capability.Nevertheless there should be an error thrown, if a word could not be
parsed.I think it leads to hard-to-find erros, if the zone is beeing ignored
silently.Opti
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
--
Freundliche Grüsse
Edward Caulfield
It's not errang behavior, it's the expected behavior of anyone who
understands time.
The fact that you don't understand what is going on doesn't mean there's a bug.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 4:38 AM Der eierlegende Wollmilchsau <edward.caulfield@gmx.ch> wrote:
I anticipate that the Ruby community would much appreciate the time and
effort you invest to correct this errant behavior.
--
Felipe Contreras
Hello!
We had that question already:
Should the user conform to the language, or the language to the user?
- Yes if one knows all the details, than he/she would expect it.
I'm sure that average people (not knowing the details of Ruby) assume
that the timezone is not ignord (silently!).
- I know, if you understand how it is implemented, it's clear that it
won't work.
BUT I'm convinced that most of the people don't know that (don't want to
know all details?); they learn how to use it when they see it's not
working as they expect. (See prev mail from Wollmilchsau 
So - mayby - I have an unusual definition of bug: In my eyes a bug is
everything leading to "avoidable" errors, which is correctable(=allowing
to do it better). - Both the language as well as the user!
- That's a very broad sight of 'bug'. Perhaps more a 'necessary
improvement to avoid errors'.
I think usage comes first. In some cases performance is important, too -
but than you wouldn't use Ruby (anything with GC).
Opti
Hello!
Got your mail after writing mine, maybe because of (GMX-Server)
spam-checking.
I'm using Ruby 2.6, so I know only the older documentation.
Looks like I was not the only person hurt be that behaviour, so
meanwhile they changed the docs
The new text sound like "It's not what you would expect - use at you own
risk."
Opti
Am 16.08.22 um 11:21 schrieb Xavier Noria:
Dear Opti, you really need to understand the definition of "bug".
When a program claims to do A, and fails to do A because there is an
error in the implementation, that is a bug.Otherwise, you may disagree with A, but that does not convert your
desire into a bug magically.Now, the documentation of Time.parse says:
/This method **does not** function as a validator. If the input string
does not match valid formats strictly, you may get a cryptic result.
Should consider to use `Time.strptime` instead of this method as
possible./
/
If you believe Time.parse should do something else, please go to
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/.Xavier
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
In order to claim something is a bug, you need to know what you call "the
details". Otherwise, how do you know it is a bug?
"The details" boils down to "you read the documentation", much more
mundane, routine, and *expected*.
You read the docs, conclude it is not a bug and move on with your
programming. You can also open a feature request if you'd like to propose
something else.
Hello!
We had that question already:
Should the user conform to the language, or the language to the user?
- Yes if one knows all the details, than he/she would expect it.
I'm sure that average people (not knowing the details of Ruby) assume
that the timezone is not ignord (silently!).
- I know, if you understand how it is implemented, it's clear that it
won't work.
BUT I'm convinced that most of the people don't know that (don't want to
know all details?); they learn how to use it when they see it's not
working as they expect. (See prev mail from Wollmilchsau
All these considerations do make sense for new APIs. But we are talking
about an established functionality. You need to understand the risk of
breaking a lot of code when changing the contract of an existing core API.
So - mayby - I have an unusual definition of bug: In my eyes a bug is
everything leading to "avoidable" errors, which is correctable(=allowing
to do it better).
Unfortunately that definition happens to be at odds with what everybody
else considers a bug. Software engineering is a very formal field and hence
formal precision is key.
- Both the language as well as the user!
- That's a very broad sight of 'bug'. Perhaps more a 'necessary
improvement to avoid errors'.
I think usage comes first. In some cases performance is important, too -
but than you wouldn't use Ruby (anything with GC).
robert
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 12:33 PM Die Optimisten <inform@die-optimisten.net> wrote:
--
[guy, jim, charlie, sho].each {|him| remember.him do |as, often| as.you_can
- without end}
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
It might help your cause in the future if you can check against the latest
documentation and/or test your code snippet in a later version to see if
either your issue has already been fixed or if the newer documentation
is more clear.
In this the docs were improved 2 years ago:
This method **does not** function as a validator. If the input
string does not match valid formats strictly, you may get a
cryptic result. Should consider to use `Date._strptime` or
`DateTime._strptime` instead of this method as possible.
And again 2 weeks ago:
This method recognizes many forms in +string+, but it is not a
validator. If +string+ does not specify a valid date, the result
is unpredictable; consider using Date._strptime instead.
If you have a suggestion that makes the documentation more clear:
Bug reports and pull requests are welcome on GitHub at
GitHub - ruby/date: A subclass of Object includes Comparable module for handling dates..
[1] [DOC] Emphasized that `parse` methods are not validators by nobu · Pull Request #23 · ruby/date · GitHub
[2] [DOC] Enhanced RDoc for parser methods by BurdetteLamar · Pull Request #68 · ruby/date · GitHub
[3] https://github.com/ruby/date/blob/master/README.md
On 8/16/22, Die Optimisten <inform@die-optimisten.net> wrote:
I'm using Ruby 2.6, so I know only the older documentation.
Looks like I was not the only person hurt be that behaviour, so
meanwhile they changed the docs
And there were many answers that displeased you, because they were
insufficiently kowtowing to your anterior intellect. As the computer (and
therefore the programming language) is an interpreter of strict rules, it
is the user who must conform to the language when it comes to programming
languages. Certain improvements may be suggested, but the creator of the
programming language may consider such improvement requests to be
inadvisable, laughable, or simply incorrect. Or they might consider them
useful and accept them.
You will never know this, because you are on the users list (the discussion
list) and not submitting your so-called "bug" reports to the core list or
bug tracker (same thing). Let’s be clear: every single thing you’ve called
a bug for the time that you have been trolling the users list would have
been closed as "WONTFIX BY DESIGN". Or maybe it would have been "use a
modern version of Ruby and then ask us again".
Ruby 2.6 is EOL. No bug report for anything less than Ruby 2.7 would be
accepted, and Ruby 2.7 is about 6 months or so from only accepting security
bug reports.
Ruby is actively used used by tens of thousands of people who are not Die
Falscheptimisten, and while many of them do have struggles with the way
that Ruby works, few of them report everything that doesn’t work like C or
Bash or some other language that IS NOT RUBY as if it were a bug. Almost
none of them invoke nonsense like "long and short options should do the
same thing, or it’s not the Unix way" (long options are a GNUsystem
innovation, and most Golang programs use long options with *single* dashes
by convention, which I think is a plan9-ism).
Which is to say that none of them are Der Arrogant, that is to say, you.
I will kindly ask you to put up (start filing your nonsense "bugs" on
ruby-talk to see what the *official* responses are) or shut up and go away
unless you’re going to be serious about learning Ruby as its own language
and stop pretending that just because it doesn’t work the way that *you*
think it should work that there’s a bug.
-a (now go away, or I shall taunt you a further time)
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 6:32 AM Die Optimisten <inform@die-optimisten.net> wrote:
Hello!
We had that question already:
Should the user conform to the language, or the language to the user?
--
Austin Ziegler • halostatue@gmail.com • austin@halostatue.ca
http://www.halostatue.ca/ • http://twitter.com/halostatue
Hello Ziegler,
You're known to begin disputes; Again you are abusive.
You see, I want to speak about technical things - you may critise them,
but NOT offending me.
You're wrong if you predict I would only get these answers you're
thinking of.
Remember my mails about Array/Hash and fetch.
I think you can't stand people able to think wider than you.
No, the answers didn't displease me. Only ashholes like you, who are
getting personal.
Sorry, you don't accept the boundaries.
Perhaps we should ban you.
I didn't offend somebody (before your mail).
But I DO NOT accept being insulted. So don't wonder if using the same
wording as you.
Opti
To the list-maintainers:
Sorry I had to write this mail. Didn't begin to be offending.
Pleas look for earlier mails of Ziegler, my impression is that he often
is getting personal and makes disputes.
So I suggest banning Austin Ziegler.
Hello!
We had that question already:
Should the user conform to the language, or the language to the user?And there were many answers that displeased you, because they were
insufficiently kowtowing to your anterior intellect. As the computer
(and therefore the programming language) is an interpreter of strict
rules, it is the user who must conform to the language when it comes
to programming languages. Certain improvements may be suggested, but
the creator of the programming language may consider such improvement
requests to be inadvisable, laughable, or simply incorrect. Or they
might consider them useful and accept them.
An example for laughable requests?
You will never know this, because you are on the users list (the
discussion list) and not submitting your so-called "bug" reports to
the core list or bug tracker (same thing). Let’s be clear: every
single thing you’ve called a bug for the time that you have been
trolling the users list would have been closed as "WONTFIX BY DESIGN".
Or maybe it would have been "use a modern version of Ruby and then ask
us again".Ruby 2.6 is EOL. No bug report for anything less than Ruby 2.7 would
be accepted, and Ruby 2.7 is about 6 months or so from only accepting
security bug reports.Ruby is actively used used by tens of thousands of people who are not
Die Falscheptimisten, and while many of them do have struggles with
the way that Ruby works, few of them report everything that doesn’t
work like C or Bash or some other language that IS NOT RUBY as if it
were a bug. Almost none of them invoke nonsense like "long and short
options should do the same thing, or it’s not the Unix way" (long
options are a GNUsystem innovation, and most Golang programs use long
options with *single* dashes by convention, which I think is a plan9-ism).Which is to say that none of them are Der Arrogant, that is to say, you.
I will kindly ask you to put up (start filing your nonsense "bugs" on
ruby-talk to see what the *official* responses are) or shut up and go
away unless you’re going to be serious about learning Ruby as its own
language and stop pretending that just because it doesn’t work the way
that *you* think it should work that there’s a bug.-a (now go away, or I shall taunt you a further time)
And now you're threatening. - Do you want to start a war? I would not
recommend this!
Am 16.08.22 um 20:48 schrieb Austin Ziegler:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 6:32 AM Die Optimisten > <inform@die-optimisten.net <mailto:inform@die-optimisten.net>> wrote:
--
Austin Ziegler • halostatue@gmail.com <mailto:halostatue@gmail.com> •
austin@halostatue.ca <mailto:austin@halostatue.ca>
http://www.halostatue.ca/ • http://twitter.com/halostatue
I do not care who feels offended. I do not see you speaking about any
"technical things".
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 3:10 PM Die Optimisten <inform@die-optimisten.net> wrote:
You're known to begin disputes; Again you are abusive.
You see, I want to speak about technical things - you may critise them,
but NOT offending me.
--
Felipe Contreras
I'd like to recommend that we:
(1) Don't give more oxygen to this thread since we have nothing new technical to add
(2) Have a single response of "This is exactly by design" for other threads where it's questioned if Ruby is doing the correct thing.
(3) Don't get triggered by the mention of the word "Bug" in a thread since we have different definitions right now.
(4) Engage if there is some view for a technical discussion (e.g., on array index/ range, etc. recently)
(5) Ignore if it bothers us
Best wishes,
Mohit.
On 2022-8-17 4:50 am, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 3:10 PM Die Optimisten > <inform@die-optimisten.net> wrote:
You're known to begin disputes; Again you are abusive.
You see, I want to speak about technical things - you may critise them,
but NOT offending me.I do not care who feels offended. I do not see you speaking about any
"technical things".
Actually, if someone needs to be banned, I suggest it be Die Optimisten.
On 16.08.22 22:09, Die Optimisten wrote:
Hello Ziegler,
You're known to begin disputes; Again you are abusive.
You see, I want to speak about technical things - you may critise them,
but NOT offending me.
You're wrong if you predict I would only get these answers you're
thinking of.
Remember my mails about Array/Hash and fetch.
I think you can't stand people able to think wider than you.
No, the answers didn't displease me. Only ashholes like you, who are
getting personal.
Sorry, you don't accept the boundaries.
Perhaps we should ban you.
I didn't offend somebody (before your mail).
But I DO NOT accept being insulted. So don't wonder if using the same
wording as you.Opti
To the list-maintainers:
Sorry I had to write this mail. Didn't begin to be offending.
Pleas look for earlier mails of Ziegler, my impression is that he
often is getting personal and makes disputes.
So I suggest banning Austin Ziegler.Am 16.08.22 um 20:48 schrieb Austin Ziegler:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 6:32 AM Die Optimisten >> <inform@die-optimisten.net> wrote:
Hello!
We had that question already:
Should the user conform to the language, or the language to the user?And there were many answers that displeased you, because they were
insufficiently kowtowing to your anterior intellect. As the computer
(and therefore the programming language) is an interpreter of strict
rules, it is the user who must conform to the language when it comes
to programming languages. Certain improvements may be suggested, but
the creator of the programming language may consider such improvement
requests to be inadvisable, laughable, or simply incorrect. Or they
might consider them useful and accept them.An example for laughable requests?
You will never know this, because you are on the users list (the
discussion list) and not submitting your so-called "bug" reports to
the core list or bug tracker (same thing). Let’s be clear: every
single thing you’ve called a bug for the time that you have been
trolling the users list would have been closed as "WONTFIX BY
DESIGN". Or maybe it would have been "use a modern version of Ruby
and then ask us again".Ruby 2.6 is EOL. No bug report for anything less than Ruby 2.7 would
be accepted, and Ruby 2.7 is about 6 months or so from only accepting
security bug reports.Ruby is actively used used by tens of thousands of people who are not
Die Falscheptimisten, and while many of them do have struggles with
the way that Ruby works, few of them report everything that doesn’t
work like C or Bash or some other language that IS NOT RUBY as if it
were a bug. Almost none of them invoke nonsense like "long and short
options should do the same thing, or it’s not the Unix way" (long
options are a GNUsystem innovation, and most Golang programs use long
options with *single* dashes by convention, which I think is a
plan9-ism).Which is to say that none of them are Der Arrogant, that is to say, you.
I will kindly ask you to put up (start filing your nonsense "bugs" on
ruby-talk to see what the *official* responses are) or shut up and go
away unless you’re going to be serious about learning Ruby as its own
language and stop pretending that just because it doesn’t work the
way that *you* think it should work that there’s a bug.-a (now go away, or I shall taunt you a further time)
And now you're threatening. - Do you want to start a war? I would not
recommend this!--
Austin Ziegler • halostatue@gmail.com • austin@halostatue.ca
http://www.halostatue.ca/ • http://twitter.com/halostatueUnsubscribe:<mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
--
Freundliche Grüsse
Edward Caulfield
Could we please put this issue to bed and move on?
On Aug 17, 2022, at 9:19 AM, Edward <edward.caulfield@gmx.ch> wrote:
Actually, if someone needs to be banned, I suggest it be Die Optimisten.
On 16.08.22 22:09, Die Optimisten wrote:
Hello Ziegler,
You're known to begin disputes; Again you are abusive.
You see, I want to speak about technical things - you may critise them,
but NOT offending me.
You're wrong if you predict I would only get these answers you're thinking of.
Remember my mails about Array/Hash and fetch.
I think you can't stand people able to think wider than you.
No, the answers didn't displease me. Only ashholes like you, who are getting personal.
Sorry, you don't accept the boundaries.
Perhaps we should ban you.
I didn't offend somebody (before your mail).
But I DO NOT accept being insulted. So don't wonder if using the same wording as you.Opti
To the list-maintainers:
Sorry I had to write this mail. Didn't begin to be offending.
Pleas look for earlier mails of Ziegler, my impression is that he often is getting personal and makes disputes.
So I suggest banning Austin Ziegler.Am 16.08.22 um 20:48 schrieb Austin Ziegler:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 6:32 AM Die Optimisten <inform@die-optimisten.net <mailto:inform@die-optimisten.net>> wrote:
Hello!
We had that question already:
Should the user conform to the language, or the language to the user?And there were many answers that displeased you, because they were insufficiently kowtowing to your anterior intellect. As the computer (and therefore the programming language) is an interpreter of strict rules, it is the user who must conform to the language when it comes to programming languages. Certain improvements may be suggested, but the creator of the programming language may consider such improvement requests to be inadvisable, laughable, or simply incorrect. Or they might consider them useful and accept them.
An example for laughable requests?
You will never know this, because you are on the users list (the discussion list) and not submitting your so-called "bug" reports to the core list or bug tracker (same thing). Let’s be clear: every single thing you’ve called a bug for the time that you have been trolling the users list would have been closed as "WONTFIX BY DESIGN". Or maybe it would have been "use a modern version of Ruby and then ask us again".
Ruby 2.6 is EOL. No bug report for anything less than Ruby 2.7 would be accepted, and Ruby 2.7 is about 6 months or so from only accepting security bug reports.
Ruby is actively used used by tens of thousands of people who are not Die Falscheptimisten, and while many of them do have struggles with the way that Ruby works, few of them report everything that doesn’t work like C or Bash or some other language that IS NOT RUBY as if it were a bug. Almost none of them invoke nonsense like "long and short options should do the same thing, or it’s not the Unix way" (long options are a GNUsystem innovation, and most Golang programs use long options with *single* dashes by convention, which I think is a plan9-ism).
Which is to say that none of them are Der Arrogant, that is to say, you.
I will kindly ask you to put up (start filing your nonsense "bugs" on ruby-talk to see what the *official* responses are) or shut up and go away unless you’re going to be serious about learning Ruby as its own language and stop pretending that just because it doesn’t work the way that *you* think it should work that there’s a bug.
-a (now go away, or I shall taunt you a further time)
And now you're threatening. - Do you want to start a war? I would not recommend this!
--
Austin Ziegler • halostatue@gmail.com <mailto:halostatue@gmail.com> • austin@halostatue.ca <mailto:austin@halostatue.ca>
http://www.halostatue.ca/ • http://twitter.com/halostatueUnsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>--
Freundliche GrüsseEdward Caulfield
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
I would strongly suggest to the parties involved to use the ignore/filter facilities of their mail clients
On 8/17/22 10:19, Edward wrote:
Actually, if someone needs to be banned, I suggest it be Die Optimisten
Hi, all.
Unfortunately, I banned Die today.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 5:25 PM hmdne <hmdne@airmail.cc> wrote:
On 8/17/22 10:19, Edward wrote:
>
> Actually, if someone needs to be banned, I suggest it be Die Optimisten
>
I would strongly suggest to the parties involved to use the
ignore/filter facilities of their mail clientsUnsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
surprised it took that long lol
On 18/8/22 7:19, SHIBATA Hiroshi wrote:
Hi, all.
Unfortunately, I banned Die today.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 5:25 PM hmdne <hmdne@airmail.cc> wrote:
On 8/17/22 10:19, Edward wrote:
Actually, if someone needs to be banned, I suggest it be Die Optimisten
I would strongly suggest to the parties involved to use the
ignore/filter facilities of their mail clientsUnsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>
THANK YOU. Thank you *so* much.
On Aug 17, 2022, at 22:19, SHIBATA Hiroshi <hsbt@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Unfortunately, I banned Die today.