This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author p-ganssle
Recipients belopolsky, p-ganssle, tim.peters
Date 2016-11-03.19:43:23
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
> 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 19:43:23p-gansslesetrecipients: + p-ganssle, tim.peters, belopolsky
2016-11-03 19:43:23p-gansslesetmessageid: <>
2016-11-03 19:43:23p-gansslelinkissue28602 messages
2016-11-03 19:43:23p-gansslecreate