RE: bug with date_convert_universal()

yes , the leap year calculation expects month to be 0 based, as in the
comments at date.h. something has to be done - I don't really mind what
- as long as the current situation is solved as quickly as possible.

--
Oded Arbel
m-Wise Inc.
[email protected]

Live for Love, for without Love you don't live.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Braakman [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:38 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: bug with date_convert_universal()
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 08:10:52PM +0100, Angel Fradejas wrote:
> > Sorry for misleading you. The code in 
> date_convert_universal is correct now.
> > It was corrected in version 1.9 as you can see in CVS. It 
> assumes 1-12
> > input, as you correctly pointed out. The problem is the 
> comment in date.h.
> 
> Umm, no.  The month is in range 0-11, and has always been until date.c
> got broken in revision 1.9.  date.h says 0-11 in the comment,
> date_parse_http() generates a month from 0 to 11, and 
> date_convert_universal() expects a month from 0 to 11.  Where did you
> see an inconsistency?
> 
> Currently it doesn't work for a 1-12 month range either, because leap
> year calculation is wrong.
> 
> I recommend reversing the patch from revision 1.9, and then 
> taking a look
> at smsc_emi2 which apparently fills in a wrong value for the 
> month field.
> (Does anyone have specs for the EMI date format?)
> 
> -- 
> Richard Braakman
> Will write free software for money.
> See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
> 
>