Re: [Datetime-SIG] Are there any "correct" implementations of tzinfo?

From	random832@fastmail.com
References	(7 earlier) <CAP7+vJ+1Vg21qOWAD+9R2REDnWiW4o6nj=Rh8fx3x3cAZipcdw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP7h-xbA6ZagKj+rQ_cCc8d0oK1F329AAhSjY240iiDyB4756A@mail.gmail.com> <CAExdVNnw6zfJQ_wFOurjj6kcLcbr9RgXA7kvyNPmgraMcHU4vQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP7h-xYp=MsOcvFXNCHNkXDDGH=jcAwYSSw1WWchy5bwZKjwLA@mail.gmail.com> <CAExdVN=_wDWrjJPyau4fmP28NQ=vNfSgQH8DuveHRJ2T2m5ZqA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject	Re: [Datetime-SIG] Are there any "correct" implementations of tzinfo?
Date	2015-09-12 22:54 -0400
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.471.1442140911.8327.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015, at 22:25, Tim Peters wrote:
> That helps a lot, but "industrial-strength" implies "by algorithm".
> There are far too many zones to deal with by crafting a hand-written
> class for each.

It occurs to me that though it's written in C, the zdump utility
included in the tz code is implementation-agnostic w.r.t. what algorithm
is used by the localtime function being tested. It's algorithm could
probably be adapted to python.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [Datetime-SIG] Are there any "correct" implementations of tzinfo? random832@fastmail.com - 2015-09-12 22:54 -0400

csiph-web