On 09/07/2015 11:06 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > FYI, I am still completely overwhelmed by this discussion. I will wait > until Tim and Alexander tell me there's a PEP to review and then I'll > read that. Carl: if you feel your position is not represented in that > PEP (even under "rejected alternatives") I recommend that you write your > own PEP. But I really hope that you all will come to an agreement > without competing PEPs!
Sure. At the moment I think PEP 495 is headed in a direction I support, relative to the other options available. So I don't have any plans for a competing PEP. My latest couple messages in this thread are more about figuring out the right framing for a documentation addition that might help people (like me) coming from a pytz-style model understand datetime's model (and specifically understand how "classic arithmetic" is not a bug). I think I finally understand it now, so I'd like to put that understanding to good use. 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/
