Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: > I can't think of a single actual downside to this change - all it does is > preserve the original behavior of `fromutc()`.
You've got me on the fence here. If what you are saying is correct, it would make sense to make this change and better do it before 3.6 is out, but it would take me some effort to convince myself that an implementation that reuses patched fromutc() is indeed correct. Why don't you implement tzrange.fromutc() in terms of say tzrange.simple_fromutc() which is your own patched version of tzinfo.fromutc(). If this passes your tests and is simpler than a straightforward fromutc() that does not have to look at tzinfo through the needle hole of utcoffset()/dst() pair but knows the internals of your timezone object, we can consider promoting your simple_fromutc() to default stdlib implementation. Alternatively, you can just convince Tim. :-) ---------- _______________________________________ 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
