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

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Fri Aug 28 04:09:13 CEST 2015

Honestly, rather than weasel-wording the PEP to keep the option open to
assign a different meaning to fold=None in the future, whatever semantics
people would like should just be given a new keyword or a new method.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:

> On 08/27/2015 06:51 AM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> """
>>   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.
> Sounds like a good compromise.  Thank you.
> --
> ~Ethan~
> _______________________________________________
> Datetime-SIG mailing list
> Datetime-SIG at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/datetime-sig
> The PSF Code of Conduct applies to this mailing list:
> https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/datetime-sig/attachments/20150827/76dbe74f/attachment.html>

More information about the Datetime-SIG mailing list