Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #96574 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [Datetime-SIG] Are there any "correct" implementations of tzinfo? Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-09-14 18:59 +0200

#96574 — Re: [Datetime-SIG] Are there any "correct" implementations of tzinfo?

In a message of Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:30:43 -0400, Random832 writes:
>On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 04:27, Laura Creighton wrote:
>> I find this totally unacceptable.  My conclusion was that hybrid tzinfo
>> objects were a _really stupid idea_ proposed by somebody who
>> misunderstood
>> the problem, or rather only understood the most common case.
>
>"Hybrid tzinfo objects" _in isolation_ are not bad. The problem isn't
>the objects themselves, it's the whole design:
>
>1. Hybrid tzinfo objects
>2. Attached tzinfo object as the _only_ way to identify the timezone of
>a datetime (no offset member)
>3. Datetime itself stored in local time.

Ah, thank you for explaining.  I thought the only reason you would
want a hybrid tzinfo number is that you absolutely did not want
an offset number.  Which is the part I found, ah, nutty.

I see now that it doesn't have to be this way.

Laura

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web