[Datetime-SIG] PEP-431/495

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Mon Aug 24 20:29:57 CEST 2015

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Alexander Belopolsky <
alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org>
> wrote:
>>> I think the other linkage between the two is that pytz's "every tzinfo
>>> instance is fixed-offset" is the most natural way to solve the PEP-495
>>> problem in the absence of PEP 495 and ensure that all datetime instances
>>> are unambiguous and valid.
>> Again (as can be seen from the endless bickering between Alexander and
>> myself about whether this is a bug or not) your view is colored by pytz's
>> position.
> I really regret that it came out as "bickering," because I am on Guido's
> side when it comes to a full DST aware tzinfo implementation.  The fixed
> offset tzinfo implementation came as a compromise between those who did not
> want any concrete tzinfo implementations in the stdlib and those who wanted
> a full-featured LocalZone implementation.
> I still want to see  LocalZone in stdlib, but to me it is only a
> worthwhile addition if it follows the original Guido/Tim design.  If you
> want the aware instances that do timeline arithmetics - you already have
> two ways to do it: convert to UTC or convert to the "current" fixed offset
> timezone.

Excellent. This makes me a little less worried about the eventual outcome
of this discussion. (And so does Tim's latest response to Stuart.)

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/datetime-sig/attachments/20150824/d5561e40/attachment.html>

More information about the Datetime-SIG mailing list