On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Random832 <random...@fastmail.com> wrote:
> Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> writes: > > There is no "earlier" or "later". There are "lesser" and "greater" > > which are already defined for all pairs of aware datetimes. PEP 495 > > doubles the set of possible datetimes > > That depends on what you mean by "possible". > What exactly depends on the meaning of "possible"? In this context "possible" means "can appear in a Python program." > > and they don't fit in one > > straight line anymore. The whole point of PEP 495 is to introduce a > > "fold" in the timeline. > > That doesn't make sense. Within a given timezone, any given moment of > UTC time (which is a straight line [shut up, no leap seconds here]) maps > to only one local time. The point of PEP 495 seems to be to eliminate > the cases where two UTC moments map to the same aware local time. > Yes, but it does that at the cost of introducing the second local "01:30" which is "later" than the first "01:40" while "obviously" (and according to the current datetime rules) "01:30" < "01:40". > > Out of curiosity, can "fold" ever be any value other than 0 or 1? > Thankfully, no. > > > Yes, but are we willing to accept that datetimes have only partial > > order? > > I apparently haven't been following the discussion closely enough to > understand how this can possibly be the case outside cases I assumed it > already was (naive vs aware comparisons being invalid). Local times that fall in the spring-forward gap cannot be ordered interzone even without PEP 495.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
