In article <mailman.5227.1389238511.18130.python-l...@python.org>, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote: > > > Because it's easy to get a naive one. You call datetime.utcnow(). If > > > utcnow() returned an aware datetime, that's probably what we would > > > be using. Why didn't utcnow() just return an aware datetime to begin > > > with? > [â¦] > > > But even so, the problem is not "why can't naive timestamps do > > everything I want". The problem is "why is it so hard to get an aware > > timestamp for the current instant". And if you ask *that* question, > > then there's likely to be an answer. > > I think Roy's question hits close to a related problem: that the > standard library makes it easy to do a sub-optimal thing, and the > behaviour we all agree is best is not the default. > > So, two questions are raised. One is what you've correctly identified: > âWhy is it so hard to get an aware timestamp for the current instant?â > The short answer is: because doing that requires a lookup into a > frequently-updated database, which (because it's so frequently updated) > isn't installed along with Python. We have a call in the standard library named utcnow(). That shouldn't require a lookup in a database. "I'm sorry, which value of zero did you want?"
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
