Message280014
> After all, how much effort would it save for you in dateutil if you could reuse the base class fromutc?
Realistically, this saves me nothing since I have to re-implement it anyway in in all versions <= Python 3.6 (basically just the exact same algorithm with line 997 replaced with enfold(dt, fold=1) rather than dt.replace(fold=1), but I'd rather it fall back to the standard `fromutc()` in fold-aware versions of Python 3.6.
That said, I don't see how it's a big can of worms to open. If you're going to provide `fromutc()` functionality, it should not be deliberately broken. As I mentioned above, I see no actual downside in having `fromutc()` actually work as advertised and as intended. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2016-11-03 19:43:23 | p-ganssle | set | recipients:
+ p-ganssle, tim.peters, belopolsky |
2016-11-03 19:43:23 | p-ganssle | set | messageid: <1478202203.73.0.15338175617.issue28602@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2016-11-03 19:43:23 | p-ganssle | link | issue28602 messages |
2016-11-03 19:43:23 | p-ganssle | create | |
|