[Datetime-SIG] PEP 495 Q & A

Alexander Belopolsky alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com
Sun Aug 23 04:42:15 CEST 2015


On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <
alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 ;-)
>>
>
> Great!  I'll let it simmer for a few days and start making the change in
> the PEP and the code.
>
> I don't think it will be right to call it a "flag" anymore.  What will be
> the right word: a fold index?
>

As an added benefit, we can get rid of the "ambiguous time" tongue-twister
and call those intervals "two-fold".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/datetime-sig/attachments/20150822/666dd23a/attachment.html>


More information about the Datetime-SIG mailing list