On 08/22/2015 08:20 PM, Tim Peters wrote: > [Alexander Belopolsky] >> ... >> Note that I did not include all suggestions for the name of the flag, but I >> thank everyone who made their suggestions. I think we are really left with >> two contenders: "fold" and "later." The only additional variant I would >> like to consider is "fold" with the integer values of 0 and 1. I think >> time(1, 30, fold=1) is short and sweet and looks better than time(1, 30, >> later=True). >> >> Note that neither spelling is self-explanatory, particularly if you see >> something like if dt.replace(later=True) < dt.replace(later=False) in >> someone's code, but the word "fold" points you in the right direction and is >> more Google-friendly than "later". >> >> The reason I think fold=0 and fold=1 may work better than booleans, is that >> you can think of the local time line as consisting of two "folds" one - the >> main timeline and the other a discontinuous line covering the fall-back >> hours. > > I'm on board with fold=0 and fold=1. I only hated "fold" when it was > False and True. Now we're indexing a theoretically unbounded sequence > of folds by an ordinal, which makes perfect sense - the later the > time, the larger the ordinal ;-)
That's ok by me. It seems wrong to use `fold` to decide which side of a gap to choose, too -- but it's even more wrong to use `first` or `later` when they actually mean the reverse when disambiguating a gap. So I'll go with your explanation that a gap is a "negative fold" and be happy :-) 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/
