STINNER Victor added the comment: > Again, under <3.6.1, that was accepted. (And again, I am making no argument > about the validity of this code, just with regards to backwards > compatibility.)
You are right that I modified the C API of datetime in Python 3.6.1 to make it stricter and reject invalid dates. I disagree that the "backward incompatibility" part: I consider that it's a bugfix, and not a behaviour change. The datetime module was enhanced in Python 3.6 with the PEP 495 to handle better DST changes: a new "fold" attribute was added. Computing this attribute requires to handle valid dates in the [datetime.datetime.min; datetime.datetime.max] range. Otherwise, you get strange errors like OverflowError: see issue #29100. If Python older than 3.6.1 allowed creating invalid dates, it was a bug, and now this bug can lead to new bugs because of the implementation of the PEP 495. Please fix you code. I now close this issue as NOTABUG. Stricter input validation was a deliberate choice. ---------- nosy: +belopolsky resolution: -> not a bug stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue29921> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
