|Anonymous | Login||2021-12-01 01:15 UTC|
|Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Docs|
|Viewing Issue Simple Details|
|ID||Category||Severity||Type||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0000739||[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1] System Interfaces||Editorial||Clarification Requested||2013-08-23 01:11||2021-04-15 10:05|
|Final Accepted Text|
|Summary||0000739: CX requirements for strftime seem to conflict with ISO C|
The POSIX text for the %F format is:
"[CX] Equivalent to %+4[Option End]Y-%m-%d if no flag and no minimum field width are specified. [ tm_year, tm_mon, tm_mday]"
whereas the ISO C text is:
"%F is equivalent to ''%Y-%m-%d'' (the ISO 8601 date format). [tm_year, tm_mon, tm_mday]"
My reading of the ISO C text is that a conforming application could assume calling strftime with "%F" and with "%Y-%m-%d" produces identical output.
One could see this as a bug in the C standard, since %Y-%m-%d does not match ISO 8601, despite the above parenthetical remark.
This issue could be resolved by requiring (and indeed, I believe this is the only way an implementation can currently comply with both the POSIX and C requirements) that %Y behaves as %+4Y.
Either add text requiring that %Y behave as %+4Y, or forward the issue to the C committee for a decision on whether C's specification of %F is erroneous.
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|Attached Files||dr_strftime.html [^] (2,736 bytes) 2014-05-29 15:21|
Note that the C standard does not specify the minimum field width, simply that "A conversion specifier consists of a % character, possibly followed by an E or O modifier character (described below), followed by a character that determines the behavior of the conversion specifier."
Thus it is unclear how the C standard might change for this case.
Re: Note: 0005315 In order for %F to match the minimum-four-digit-year requirement of ISO 8601, the C standard could require that %F is equivalent to %Y-%m-%d except that if the year is between 0 and 999 then the %F result has leading 0's added so that the year has 4 digits. However, I don't think there is any way it can match the ISO 8601 requirements for years outside [0,9999] without adding field widths, since (quoting wikipedia) "An expanded year representation [±YYYYY] must have an agreed-upon number of extra year digits beyond the four-digit minimum", so there needs to be a way for that agreed-upon number to be used in the strftime() format string.
It appears that our requirement that %F is equivalent to %+4Y-%m-%d also does not match ISO 8601 for years between -1 and -999 because %+4Y would produce a '-' sign and 3 digits (e.g. -001) whereas ISO 8601 requires a '-' sign and four digits (e.g. -0001). We should change it to %+4Y for non-negative years and %+5Y for negative years.
|2013-08-23 01:11||dalias||New Issue|
|2013-08-23 01:11||dalias||Name||=> Rich Felker|
|2013-08-23 01:11||dalias||Organization||=> musl libc|
|2013-08-23 01:11||dalias||Section||=> strftime|
|2013-08-23 01:11||dalias||Page Number||=> unknown|
|2013-08-23 01:11||dalias||Line Number||=> unknown|
|2013-09-05 15:52||eblake||Tag Attached: c99|
|2013-09-05 15:53||Don Cragun||Page Number||unknown => 2023|
|2013-09-05 15:53||Don Cragun||Line Number||unknown => 64612-64623|
|2013-09-05 15:53||Don Cragun||Interp Status||=> ---|
|2014-05-29 15:15||nick||File Added: dr_strftime.html|
|2014-05-29 15:21||nick||File Deleted: dr_strftime.html|
|2014-05-29 15:21||nick||File Added: dr_strftime.html|
|2018-01-13 20:19||dennisw||Issue Monitored: dennisw|
|2021-04-14 16:58||nick||Note Added: 0005315|
|2021-04-14 16:59||nick||Note Added: 0005316|
|2021-04-14 16:59||nick||Note Deleted: 0005316|
|2021-04-15 10:05||geoffclare||Note Added: 0005318|
|2021-05-17 15:10||geoffclare||Tag Detached: c99|
|Mantis 1.1.6[^] Copyright © 2000 - 2008 Mantis Group|