8000 Fix datetime.strftime by karolyi · Pull Request #6317 · python/typeshed · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

Fix datetime.strftime #6317

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 1, 2021
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
strftime(fmt: str) -> strftime(format: str)
  • Loading branch information
karolyi committed Nov 16, 2021
commit c855b8f971c1993514a48e7605d19cc1a2961e79
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions stdlib/datetime.pyi
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ class date:
@property
def day(self) -> int: ...
def ctime(self) -> str: ...
def strftime(self, fmt: str) -> str: ...
def strftime(self, format: str) -> str: ...
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
def strftime(self, format: str) -> str: ...
def strftime(self, __format: str) -> str: ...

Let's make it positional-only as discussed.

Copy link
Contributor Author
@karolyi karolyi Nov 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Quoting https://bugs.python.org/msg373421, specifically:

I think in typeshed they can safely change from fmt to format even today (which would almost certainly be more accurate to end user use cases).

What do you have against this?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Type checking is all about warning users about situations where their code could lead to unexpected errors. Passing a keyword argument to this parameter will currently cause code to raise an error sometimes (but not all the time, or even most of the time), as not all systems can be guaranteed to use the C implementation of datetime (this is partly why the Python implementation exists alongside the C implementation). If a user passes a positional argument to this parameter, however, then there is no possibility of an error. So, it seems correct that, as the situation currently stands, a type-checker should raise an error if a keyword argument is passed to this parameter, as doing so could in some situations lead to unexpected errors.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's definitely better than the current situation to have the parameter named format, but I agree that the best option for now is to have it as a positional-only parameter in the stub.

def __format__(self, fmt: str) -> str: ...
def isoformat(self) -> str: ...
def timetuple(self) -> struct_time: ...
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ class time:
if sys.version_info >= (3, 7):
@classmethod
def fromisoformat(cls: Type[_S], time_string: str) -> _S: ...
def strftime(self, fmt: str) -> str: ...
def strftime(self, format: str) -> str: ...
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
def strftime(self, format: str) -> str: ...
def strftime(self, __format: str) -> str: ...

def __format__(self, fmt: str) -> str: ...
def utcoffset(self) -> timedelta | None: ...
def tzname(self) -> str | None: ...
Expand Down
0