Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> - if (num3 < 0)
> + if (num3 < 0) {
> num3 = 0;
> + } else if (*end == '.' && isdigit(end[1]) &&
> + tm->tm_year != -1 && tm->tm_mon != -1 && tm->tm_mday != -1 &&
> + set_time(num, num2, num3, tm) == 0) {
> + /* %Y%m%d is known, ignore fractional <num4> in HHMMSS.<num4> */
> + strtol(end + 1, &end, 10);
> + }
> if (set_time(num, num2, num3, tm) == 0)
Hmmm.
While calling set_time() on the same 4-tuple might be idempotent
when it succeeds, the call with a potential new side effect in the
conditional part leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I am wondering if the follwoing would be a more readable
alternative.
date.c | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/date.c b/date.c
index f5d5a91208..3eb9b6032c 100644
--- a/date.c
+++ b/date.c
@@ -572,8 +572,16 @@ static int match_multi_number(timestamp_t num, char c, const char *date,
case ':':
if (num3 < 0)
num3 = 0;
- if (set_time(num, num2, num3, tm) == 0)
+ if (set_time(num, num2, num3, tm) == 0) {
+ /*
+ * Is the "HH:MM:SS" we just parsed followed by
+ * ".<num4>" (fractinal second)? Discard it
+ * only when we already have YY/MM/DD.
+ */
+ if (*end == '.' && isdigit(end[1]) && date_known(tm))
+ (void) strtol(end + 1, &end, 10);
break;
+ }
return 0;
case '-':
