apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <sterl...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] better strftime support for win32
Date Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:52:52 GMT
> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@covalent.net>
> To: "Aaron Bannert" <aaron@clove.org>, <dev@apr.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] better strftime support for win32
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:14:21 -0600
>
> From: "Aaron Bannert" <aaron@clove.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:42 PM
>
>
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 05:39:59PM -0800, John Sterling wrote:
> > >
> > > Long ago (maybe 3 years ago?) Manoj generated a patch for 1.3 which added
> > > some widely used formats which were not implemented in the libc
> > > implementation of strftime on win32.
> > >
> > > Ideally we would continue to implement formats as necessary (or should we spend
some
> > > time implementing them all?).
> >
> > John and I had some time this weekend to talk about this, and I definately
> > think this is the right way to go. Unfortunately, I can't test this as
> > I don't have a win32 box, but here is my +1 in concept.
>
> +1 here as well, and since strftime() isn't even consistent on all Un*x platforms,
> we would be best off doing this;
>
> 1. Define our set of supported strftime() escapes.
>
> 2. Create a bit of autoconf magic to format a string, repleat with all
>    our supported escapes, and compare to our 'expected' result.
>
> 3. If so, HAVE_COMPLETE_STRFTIME and use the clib's implemention...
>
> 4. ... otherwise use the apr implementation.
>
> I'll commit John's code, but want to see us start testing across the board for
> our agreed-upon format tokens [however we define them].

can we get this patch committed? just checking in :)

sterling


Mime
View raw message