[Datetime-SIG] Another round on error-checking
alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 20:33:59 CEST 2015
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I'd rather acknowledge that problem cases exist in a direct
> and straightforward way, by adding a new tzinfo (say).classify()
> method. For example, .classify() could return a
> (kind, detail)
> - kind==DTKIND_NORMAL.
> Not an exceptional case.
> detail is None.
> - kind==DTKIND_FOLD_NORMAL.
> The datetime is in a fold, and its `fold` value is sane.
> detail is the datetime's `fold` value (0 or 1).
> - kind==DTKIND_FOLD_INVALID.
> The datetime does not have `fold==0`, but the datetime is not in a fold.
> detail is the datetime's `fold` value (whatever it may be).
> - kind==DTKIND_GAP.
> The datetime is in a gap.
> detail is a (d1, d2) 2-tuple, where `d1` and `d2` are
> timedeltas such that (in classic arithmetic):
> datetime - d1 is the closest earlier non-gap time
> datetime + d2 is the closest later non-gap time
> Users can call that directly when they like.
I have no objection to this method as long as a default implementation in
terms of a PEP 495 compliant .utcoffset() is provided in the basic
datetime.tzinfo. Not a bad idea for another PEP. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Datetime-SIG