Re: [Datetime-SIG] What's are the issues?
On 07/28/2015 01:58 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
Now that we have a datetime list, maybe it's time to re-center ourselves.
I know I got all caught up in the semantics and details, but I just now gave the PEP another read-through, and, well, it looks good to me.
What are the issues still to be resolved?
I think the biggest issue is that Lennart was trying to change the way datetimes work, which a. would be a compatibility break b. is not clear from the PEP I think a lot of confusion comes from the necessity of using timedeltas as a time measurement device, even when we aren't really using them that way -- meaning when we add a timedelta of 7 days to go from Jun 27 09:00 to Jul 4 09:00 we (usually) don't care if that is exactly 7 * 24 hours later. I think the ideal solution would be to have tz-aware datetimes able to switch their timezone as needed, but that would also be a backwards-compatibility break -- not to mention the need to be able to specify whether one wants the "calendar" operation (7am is still 7am) or the actual duration operation (7am may be 6am or 8am if a clock change occurs). On the gripping hand we already have the calendar semantics, so perhaps just a whole new type of datetime would be best? -- ~Ethan~
participants (1)
-
Ethan Furman