[Datetime-SIG] Another round on error-checking
tim.peters at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 21:07:32 CEST 2015
>> I think the main difference between Tim's current proposal and what was
>> previously discussed is that all older proposals somehow required a
>> third value for fold.
> Yes, that's true. That's because (unless I'm misunderstanding) Tim is
> suggesting something far more audacious than I had considered: making
> "raise an error on ambiguity" the default behavior, instead of an opt-in
> choice. The extra value for `fold` was just the opt-in mechanism.
At a high level, I'm questioning the "_never_ raise an exception" PEP
495 behavior. It grates. "Errors should never pass silently" and
Which of "always raise an exception" or "opt-in" would be better is
secondary to me at this point. There's little point to arguing about
the low-order bits before there's consensus on the high-order bit.
More information about the Datetime-SIG