Alexander Belopolsky <belopol...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
Is there still interest in pursuing this? Normalizing out of bounds arguments
to datetime constructor is easy, but rather pointless. It is trivial to
implement this functionality using existing timedelta constructor:
def normdatetime(Y, M, D, h, m, s):
return datetime(Y, M, D) + timedelta(hours=h, minutes=m, seconds=s)
It would be much more interesting to allow datetime objects to store ISO 8601
data without loss of information. It may be important to some applications
that datetime(Y, M, D, 24).date() is date(Y, M, D) rather than the next day.
Other applications may want to distinguish between datetime(Y, M, D, 24) and
datetime(Y, M, D) + timedelta(1) in some other ways. For leap seconds
accounting, normalizing ISO 8601 timestamps with seconds=60 to the next minute
is certainly wrong. An application that is unfortunate enough to record data
during a leap second would clearly want to distinguish that data from data
recorded a second later.
I believe that from practical applications point of view, it would be best to
allow storing hour=24 and second=60 in datetime structure and order the
resulting objects in the same way as ISO 8601 strings are ordered
alphabetically. In other words,
Y-M-D 24:00 < Y-M-D+1 00:00
and
Y-M-D 23:59:60 < Y-M-D+1 00:00:00.
There is no sane choice for subtraction operation involving these special
values or for adding timedeltas to them. It is probably best to raise an
exception in those cases.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue10427>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
