On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Alexander Belopolsky < [email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Guido van Rossum <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >>> I think the other linkage between the two is that pytz's "every tzinfo >>> instance is fixed-offset" is the most natural way to solve the PEP-495 >>> problem in the absence of PEP 495 and ensure that all datetime instances >>> are unambiguous and valid. >> >> >> Again (as can be seen from the endless bickering between Alexander and >> myself about whether this is a bug or not) your view is colored by pytz's >> position. >> > > I really regret that it came out as "bickering," because I am on Guido's > side when it comes to a full DST aware tzinfo implementation. The fixed > offset tzinfo implementation came as a compromise between those who did not > want any concrete tzinfo implementations in the stdlib and those who wanted > a full-featured LocalZone implementation. > > I still want to see LocalZone in stdlib, but to me it is only a > worthwhile addition if it follows the original Guido/Tim design. If you > want the aware instances that do timeline arithmetics - you already have > two ways to do it: convert to UTC or convert to the "current" fixed offset > timezone. > Excellent. This makes me a little less worried about the eventual outcome of this discussion. (And so does Tim's latest response to Stuart.) -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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/
