Honestly, rather than weasel-wording the PEP to keep the option open to assign a different meaning to fold=None in the future, whatever semantics people would like should just be given a new keyword or a new method.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Ethan Furman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/27/2015 06:51 AM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > > """ >> In CPython, any non-integer value of fold [passed to replace()] will >> raise a TypeError , but other implementations may allow the value None to >> behave the same as when fold is not given. >> """ >> >> I am fine with removing this text and leaving fold=None option open for >> the future PEPs to explore. >> > > Sounds like a good compromise. Thank you. > > > -- > ~Ethan~ > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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/
