Terry J. Reedy added the comment:
If this point I suggest asking on pydev, maybe after you think more about how
you want it to be for the next decade.
If the behavior is intentional and the doc says nothing, one might consider the
behavior the 'document'. Hence deprecation might be needed.
Paul Ganssle added the comment:
I'm glad that Terry brought up documentation, though, because I realized that
this is not a documented behavior:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/datetime.html#datetime.date.isocalendar
We should maybe document it? Though if we document it it might be
Paul Ganssle added the comment:
Even if it were accidental (and it wasn't — it was actually somewhat difficult
to achieve), I'd still argue for not changing it in 3.9, because it would mean
that pickles created in 3.9.(n+1) would not be readable in 3.9.n.
Still, I don't think I'd be
Terry J. Reedy added the comment:
If the current situation is not a bug, a mismatch between behavior and doc, a
change would be an enhancement limited to the next release.
--
nosy: +terry.reedy
title: I think the rationale to keep IsoCalendarDate private from the pickle
perspective
