[Tim] > [Carl Meyer <[email protected]>] >> ... >> To summarize: trying to disambiguate folds leads to contradiction if the >> implementation doesn't fully accept a "timeline" view of tz-aware >> datetimes, because in a "naive" view, the two overlapping times in a >> fold are the _same time_. The very idea of disambiguation itself is a >> "timeline view" concept; it's not consistent with naive time. > > Fun, isn't it?
If this is a fair summary, then why are we still trying to both keep a "naive" model for aware datetimes and also disambiguate folds, when we've just accepted that the two concepts are inherently contradictory and combining them inevitably will lead to surprises? If timezone-annotated datetimes in Python are really just supposed to represent naive clock time with an associated timezone, then there is no point in trying to disambiguate at a fold; both sides of the fold are the same naive clock time in the same timezone. If timezone-annotated datetimes in Python represent an unambiguously UTC-convertible instant, then why shouldn't they consistently behave that way (and happily eliminate all the surprising corner cases from PEP 495)? If they are supposed to represent some quantum hybrid of the two, where in some situations they behave like one and in some situations like the other (that is the status quo, of course), is there a concisely-stated consistent rule by which one can predict when they will behave like one and when they will behave like the other? Will that rule still apply post-PEP-495? 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/
