Re: [Datetime-SIG] Another round on error-checking
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Tim Peters
At a high level, I'm questioning the "_never_ raise an exception" PEP 495 behavior. It grates. "Errors should never pass silently" and such.
But these are not errors! As I mentioned before, it was bad PR on my part to call datetimes in the gaps or with ignorable fold=1 "invalid." I should have called them "denormalized." I believe many aware datetime manipulation algorithms can benefit from having denormalized instances as intermediate values and being able to call .utcoffset() and friends on such instances. My primary use case is the "naive scheduler" which gives you no means to schedule anything with fold=1 and if you give it 02:45 AM in the gap it will silently take it for 03:45 AM. As long as it displays the correct time in every reminder, I don't care that it did to chastise me for not knowing about the DST gap.
participants (1)
-
Alexander Belopolsky