> > [ijs] > >>>> I *really* hope the answer to this one is, "don't do that". > > > > [Alexander Belopolsky] > >>> 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. > > > > [Ethan Furman] > >> If the default is True (or False), then this won't be a problem. It will > >> only > >> be None when explicitly asked for. > >> > >> `time` can just store the flag, and when it is combined with a date the > >> flag > >> should be checked and if None and the resulting datetime doesn't exist or > >> is > >> ambiguous an exception can be raised. > > > > A time with a non-constant-offset tzinfo is always ambiguous, and can have > > an > > arbitrary number of possible offsets. There are several time zones with at > > least > > three possible offsets for a given time in the last 10 years. How on earth > > do > > you define the meaning of a time with a non-constant tzinfo attached? Or > > does it > > only mean something when it's recombined with a date? > > I hope the only way I would use a plain time is for today (whichever day > 'today' happens to be), in which case having a tzinfo is still helpful for > knowing what time it is somewhere else. Which is > still a buggy proposition on days involving time switches.
Sounds like "don't do that" to me. ijs _______________________________________________ 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/
