anatoly techtonik email@example.com added the comment:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Alexander Belopolsky firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I have to agree with the OP that the current state of the docs is not as clear as it could be.
In some ways the state of the docs is reflective of the state of the code. C/POSIX API on which time module design is based is not very well suited to the age of smart phones and distributed VC systems. The whole idea that there is a static "system timezone" is absurd when a "system" is in your pocket or in the cloud.
I agree that the docs can be improved, but I don't see patches that would constitute an improvement. I've explained what I would see as an improvement in my prior comments.
Absurd need to be eliminated, but every time I touch datetime issues I am confused by the complexity of additional information and incompatibility of low-level C API with user needs. We need datetime FAQ for a reference and a collection of user stories to see what it possible (with examples/recipes) and what is impossible (with proposals/PEP) in current state. If I was in charge - I'd mark all datetime issues as release blockers for Py3k, so that all who wanted Py3k released ASAP dedicate their time to this problem.