bug#9718: bugs in `date` command?

[Voelker, Bernhard]

Jim Meyering wrote:

> Eric Blake wrote:
> ...
> > As currently coded in the grammar, this is correct.  But if someone
> > were willing to put forth the effort to update parsedate.y, as well as
> > enhance the testsuite to cover things, it might be possible to improve
> > the grammar to accept both common meanings of "second" depending on
> > the context where it appears compared to the rest of the date.
> 
> Just in case, I've marked this as "wishlist".
> If you're interested, please add it to TODO.
> If not, please close this.

I don't know if it violates some standards, but I'd vote for
abbreviations like "1st", "2nd", "3rd", "4th", etc. which do not
interfere with the double meaning of "second".
What do you think?

Have a nice day,
Berny