On 08/25/2015 03:01 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Carl Meyer <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > If you accept this, and still > think that the best API datetime can provide is "localize twice and > figure it out yourself", I'm not interested in arguing the point. > > > Trust me, I considered many other options, but I have 4000+ lines of > datetime unit tests that I cannot break. If you can come up with a > patch that does what you want and passes python -m test test_datetime - > I would certainly like to see it.
I don't understand why it seems like you continue to interpret all requests for an opt-in way to raise an exception as requests to change the default, which nobody is contemplating. I can't imagine how raising an exception on invalid times only if a non-default sentinel value is given for a flag that is _new in PEP 495_ could possibly break 4000 lines of existing datetime tests. 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/
