[Datetime-SIG] pytz vs. PEP 495 Was: PEP-431/495

Alexander Belopolsky alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com
Mon Aug 24 23:10:43 CEST 2015

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:

> On 08/24/2015 01:44 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:28 PM, ISAAC J SCHWABACHER wrote:
>> [ijs]
>>> I *really* hope the answer to this one is, "don't do that".
>> That's not an option because people already *do* [1] that and they won't
>> stop.
>> Neither they will stop using datetime.combine() [2] or datetime.replace()
>> [3]
>> or tolerate if those methods start raising exceptions.
> If the default is True (or False), then this won't be a problem.  It will
> only be None when explicitly asked for.

I addressed [1] three reasons why people want to have the third value for
the fold index in the recent version of the PEP.  Let me just note that the
three reasons are mutually exclusive: for example, the first and last call
for different defaults.  I suggest that the proponents of the
fold=None/fold=-1 option first agree on one specific behavior that they
want and then we consider the virtues of such behavior (if any).

[1]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0495/#are-two-values-enough
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/datetime-sig/attachments/20150824/507553da/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Datetime-SIG mailing list