On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Ethan Furman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The problem with "hardcoding" the temporal relationship in the name of >> the flag is that for a missing time `t` you get a counter-intuitive >> t.replace(later=True) - t.replace(later=False) < 0. >> > > .. > >> The value of "first" will be ignored in all operations except those that >> involve conversion between timezones. >> > > So why won't `t.replace(_ltdf=True)` be the same value as > `t.replace(_ltdf=False)` ? The flag itself would be different, but the > flag is not consulted for maths operations, right? I used t.replace(later=True) - t.replace(later=False) < 0 as a shorthand for t.replace(later=True).timestamp() - t.replace(later=False).timestamp() < 0. (The 0 in the r.h.s. instead of timedelta(0) could serve as a hint.)
_______________________________________________ Datetime-SIG mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/datetime-sig The PSF Code of Conduct applies to this mailing list: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
