On 08/24/2015 05:50 PM, Tim Peters wrote: > [ijs] >>>>> I see how PEP 495 makes it possible to convert datetimes correctly >>>>> in all cases, > > [Tim] >>>> Whew! You may well be only the second person to grasp this - thanks :-) > > [ijs] >>> Wait... was this ever in contention? > > [Carl Meyer] >> I don't think so. I'm not sure what Tim is referring to here; I haven't >> seen any messages in this thread that indicated a lack of understanding >> on this point. > > I've lost track of how often I've explained it. That suggests it's > not being understood. Start with the message at the top of _this_ > (renamed) thread, which was posted today, so it shouldn't fade > entirely from memory for at least another 37 minutes ;-)
Fair enough :-) I can't seem to find Stuart's message that you were replying to, but my (sometimes failing) memory thought it was more of a design justification of pytz (in a non-PEP-495 world) than a critique of PEP 495. In any case, since I've argued several times that naive arithmetic on aware datetimes is wrong, I'll be crystal clear: I don't think there's any question that it is possible to make conversions unambiguous without changing how datetime arithmetic works, and that PEP 495 achieves that much. My only quibbles about PEP 495 are minor ones: naming, API convenience for "strict mode", and the fact that it won't help me, because until we do change the arithmetic, I'll keep on using pytz and its fixed-offset tzinfo objects :-) Carl
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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/
