[Datetime-SIG] PEP 495 Q & A

Tim Peters tim.peters at gmail.com
Sun Aug 23 04:20:26 CEST 2015

[Alexander Belopolsky]
> ...
> Note that I did not include all suggestions for the name of the flag, but I
> thank everyone who made their suggestions.   I think we are really left with
> two contenders: "fold" and "later."  The only additional variant I would
> like to consider is "fold" with the integer values of 0 and 1.  I think
> time(1, 30, fold=1) is short and sweet and looks better than time(1, 30,
> later=True).
> Note that neither spelling is self-explanatory, particularly if you see
> something like if dt.replace(later=True) < dt.replace(later=False) in
> someone's code, but the word "fold" points you in the right direction and is
> more Google-friendly than "later".
> The reason I think fold=0 and fold=1 may work better than booleans, is that
> you can think of the local time line as consisting of two "folds" one - the
> main timeline and the other a discontinuous line covering the fall-back
> hours.

I'm on board with fold=0 and fold=1.  I only hated "fold" when it was
False and True.  Now we're indexing a theoretically unbounded sequence
of folds by an ordinal, which makes perfect sense - the later the
time, the larger the ordinal ;-)

More information about the Datetime-SIG mailing list