[Datetime-SIG] PEP-495 - Strict Invalid Time Checking
alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com
Thu Aug 27 15:51:58 CEST 2015
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
>> OK, so datetime module itself will never set fold=-1. In the list
below, can you mark the methods that need to be patched to check the fold
attribute in your preferred design:
datetime.combine YES (could have a time instance with fold=None)
datetime.strptime only if `fold=` is allowed
> If `fold=None` is present /when attempting to create a datetime/ that is
ambiguous or invalid, an exception is raised /at that moment/ meaning that
a datetime with `fold=None` /will never exist/. fold=None` /will not be the
I don't grasp the significance of the slashes in your text above, but it
looks like your idea is similar to the one I outlined in the "Strict
Invalid Time Checking: an idea for another PEP" thread.
As I said there, it is workable, but there are many details that need to be
thought out before this idea becomes PEP-worthy. Let's move the discussion
of those details to a thread that does not have PEP 495 in the subject.
Feel free to reuse my thread or open a new one.
What we can do in PEP 495 is tighten the language about acceptable values
for the fold= argument in replace(). Since pure python implementation
currently allows None for year through microsecond arguments, we have the
following text in the PEP:
In CPython, any non-integer value of fold [passed to replace()] will raise
a TypeError , but other implementations may allow the value None to behave
the same as when fold is not given.
I am fine with removing this text and leaving fold=None option open for the
future PEPs to explore.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Datetime-SIG