On 08/25/2015 03:22 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Carl Meyer <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > 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. > > > OK, so datetime module itself will never set fold=-1. In the list > below, can you mark the methods that need to be patched to check the > fold attribute in your preferred design: ... > Please ask Isaac and Stuart to do the same. Once you agree on a list, > let's continue this discussion.
My answer is "only in those same locations where the fold attribute would otherwise be checked in order to resolve an ambiguity." That is, I wouldn't introduce any new checks: only and exactly where PEP 495 would otherwise make a guess based on the fold attribute should it raise an exception if the fold attribute is set to a "don't guess" sentinel (for which I'd prefer None to -1, since the latter invites confusion with tm_isdst). 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/
