[Datetime-SIG] PEP-495 - Strict Invalid Time Checking

[Alexander Belopolsky]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
[Alexander Belopolsky]
>>
>>
>> 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:

[Ethan Furman]
datetime.__new__         YES
datetime.combine         YES (could have a time instance with fold=None)
datetime.replace         YES
datetime.strptime        only if `fold=` is allowed

[Ethan Furman]
>
> 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
default/.

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...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/datetime-sig/attachments/20150827/316b892b/attachment.html>