On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Ethan Furman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/24/2015 01:44 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:28 PM, ISAAC J SCHWABACHER wrote: >> >> [ijs] >>> I *really* hope the answer to this one is, "don't do that". >>> >> >> That's not an option because people already *do* [1] that and they won't >> stop. >> Neither they will stop using datetime.combine() [2] or datetime.replace() >> [3] >> or tolerate if those methods start raising exceptions. >> > > If the default is True (or False), then this won't be a problem. It will > only be None when explicitly asked for. > I addressed [1] three reasons why people want to have the third value for the fold index in the recent version of the PEP. Let me just note that the three reasons are mutually exclusive: for example, the first and last call for different defaults. I suggest that the proponents of the fold=None/fold=-1 option first agree on one specific behavior that they want and then we consider the virtues of such behavior (if any). [1]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0495/#are-two-values-enough
_______________________________________________ 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/
