Message108278
| Author |
belopolsky |
| Recipients |
belopolsky, mark.dickinson |
| Date |
2010年06月21日.15:35:15 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.00026254644 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1277134517.77.0.579653961485.issue9004@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
With timezone.utc available in datetime module, users should be encouraged to use dt.astimezone(timezone.utc).timetuple() instead of dt.utctimetuple(). Note that the later will set tm_isdst to -1. This observation can be used to argue for either of two ways to resolve this issue:
1. Since utctimetuple() is no longer necessary, and the alternative works correctly, there is no need to fix it. Just recommend the astimezone use in the docs and explain the subtle difference.
2. Having two ways to do the same thing which have a subtle difference is not a good idea.
I am leaning towards #1, but would like to hear from others. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2010年06月21日 15:35:17 | belopolsky | set | recipients:
+ belopolsky, mark.dickinson |
| 2010年06月21日 15:35:17 | belopolsky | set | messageid: <1277134517.77.0.579653961485.issue9004@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年06月21日 15:35:16 | belopolsky | link | issue9004 messages |
| 2010年06月21日 15:35:16 | belopolsky | create |
|