Paul G added the comment: > 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. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue28602> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
