Re: #203: Timestamps "BC" raise "ValueError: second must be in 0..59"

On 17/01/2008, Tim Roberts <[email protected]> wrote:
> James Henstridge wrote:
> > One place where mx.DateTime and PostgreSQL disagree is on whether
> > there is a "year zero".  With Postgres, the two years before 0001 are
> > 0001 BC and 0002 BC .  With mx.DateTime, they are 0000 and -0001.  The
> > typecast and adapter code takes this into account.
> >
>
> Interesting; I would have to call that a bug in mx.  In calendar terms,
> there is no year 0.  The day before Jan 1, 1 AD was Dec 31, 1 BC.
>
> I suppose one could handle this easily enough in the conversions, but it
> seems surprising.

From the mx.DateTime documentaton:

"""
Dates before the Epoch are handled by extrapolating the calendars
using negative years as basis (the year 1 BCE corresponds to the year
0, 2 BCE is represented as year -1 and so on).
"""

So it is the documented behaviour rather than a bug.

James.