On Mar 6, 2014, at 2:20 AM, Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopolsky@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Bruce Leban <bruce@leapyear.org> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopolsky@gmail.com> wrote:

it is convenient to have a simple test for midnight.

Except this isn't it. That's only works for naive times. For aware times:

00:00:00+00:00 = midnight England = midnight UTC => False

00:00:00+01:00 = midnight France = 2300 UTC => True
01:00:00+01:00 = 1 am France = midnight UTC => False

19:00:00-05:00 = 1 am Boston = midnight UTC => True

Code that relies that bool(time) is False for midnight is broken IMHO.

You keep fighting your own straw-man. My use case is not using an arbitrary time
object that someone decided to imbue with a timezone info. What I want is given

a *datetime* instance dt to check whether it falls on midnight in whatever timezone
dt.tzinfo represent or naively if dt.tzinfo is None.

So check for it falling on midnight. It’s not reasonable to expect that midnight will evaluate

to false, especially when it doesn’t if you happen to have a tzinfo on the time (sometimes!).

That makes the behavior even more surprising and more footgun-ey.

I claim that "if dt.time()" is a perfectly good shorthand for "if dt.time() != datetime.time(0)”.

And I claim that you’re reaching to justify stupid behavior.

I am not trying to argue that "if not dt.timetz()" test is equally useful

And yet you can’t control what people do with it. Consistency is a virtue and how objects

act with a tzinfo and how they act without a tzinfo should be as close as possible.

.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/