Re: OT: Re: Less is more

Keith Moore writes:
> not really, because it's not representative of the kinds of errors 
> that programmers make when writing 822 date parsers.
Frode's field was syntactically valid (as far as I could see). A 
syntactically valid field is _never_ representative of "typical errors 
that programmers make".
If a program can't parse Frode's field, it can't parse the RFC822 date 
field syntax as specified. Probably it can parse some commonly used but 
unspecified subset.
Arnt