[Tim] >> Sure - no complaint. I was just saying that in the specific, >> complicated, contrived expression Nick presented, that it always >> returns False (no matter which aware datetime he starts with) would be >> more of a head-scratcher than if it raised a "can't compare naive and >> aware datetimes" exception instead.
[Guido] > And yet I think the desired behavior of == requires us to return False. Yes - we remain in violent agreement on all points here. > I think we should change this in the PEP, except I can't find where > the PEP says == should raise an exception in this case. It doesn't - the only comparison behavior changed by the PEP is in case of interzone comparison when at least one comparand is a "problem time" (which can only happen with a post-495 tzinfo). Then "==" is always False. That hack is the ugliest part of the PEP, but was needed to preserve the hash invariant (d1 == d2 implies hash(d1) == hash(d2)). BTW, while the PEP doesn't spell this out, trichotomy can fail in some such cases (those where "==" would have returned True had it not been forced to return False - then "<" and ">" will also be False). In any case, nothing changes for any case of aware-vs-naive comparison. _______________________________________________ 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
