Author belopolsky
Recipients ajaksu2, belopolsky, brett.cannon, doerwalter, eric.araujo, ggenellina, kawai, pitrou, rafe, vstinner
Date 2010-05-25.02:18:10
SpamBayes Score 0.00151386
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1274753894.3.0.0455773830184.issue5094@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I have two questions about the proposed implementation:

1. Why not follow pytz lead and expose an instance of UTC rather than the UTC class itself?

2. Is there a real need to add a boolean argument to utcnow()?  I think timedelta.now(UTC()) or with utc = UTC() timedelta.now(utc) seems to be a more obvious way to produce TZ aware datetime.

If a singleton instance utc is exposed instead of UTC class, I would suggest to change its repr to 'datetime.utc'.

On the patch itself, datetime_utcnow() is missing an error check for PyObject_IsTrue() return value:

>>> class X:
...    def __nonzero__(self): raise RuntimeError
... 
>>> datetime.utcnow(tz_aware=X())
datetime.datetime(2010, 5, 25, 2, 12, 14, 739720, tzinfo=<datetime.UTC object at 0x1015aab80>)
XXX undetected error
..
History
Date User Action Args
2010-05-25 02:18:15belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, doerwalter, brett.cannon, ggenellina, pitrou, vstinner, ajaksu2, kawai, eric.araujo, rafe
2010-05-25 02:18:14belopolskysetmessageid: <1274753894.3.0.0455773830184.issue5094@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-05-25 02:18:11belopolskylinkissue5094 messages
2010-05-25 02:18:10belopolskycreate