[Carl Meyer <[email protected]>, on "aware" datetimes following the "naive time" model] > ... > You may want to rail against that model. I (and some others) already > did. You can go back in the archives here and read our efforts. Perhaps > you'll have better luck if you try; I doubt it.
There are two ways Random832 might have better luck: 1. Making Guido regret naive time. 2. Making datetime change what it's done for the last dozen years. I'd say the chance of #1 is one in a billion. But that's a lot better than the chance of #2 ;-) > But given that model, this is the only approach that makes sense. We should also note that we already _tried_ paying attention to fold within a single zone. Besides being even more of a conceptual mess, as you and I batted examples back & forth it became clear that it broke various other kinds of backward compatibility. > And you can get the same work done in that model. If you want to operate > on the physical-time timeline, just always operate in UTC internally and > only translate to "aware datetimes" at display time. That's what you > probably should be doing anyway. Alas, sanity is the last thing any good programmer will yield to ;-) _______________________________________________ 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/
