As an update, I have the C version done and basically tested as an extension (I "cheated" on the tests by using hypothesis, so I still need to write unittest-style tests), just writing the Python version with tests now. I know there is a feature freeze coming in soon, is there a strict deadline here if we want this for Python 3.7? Best, Paul On 12/01/2017 12:47 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Paul G <paul@ganssle.io> wrote:
I can write at least a pure Python implementation in the next few days, if not a full C implementation. Shouldn't be too hard since I've got a few different Cython implementations sitting around anyway.
Thanks!
-CHB
On November 29, 2017 7:06:58 PM EST, Alexander Belopolsky < alexander.belopolsky@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Chris Barker <chris.barker@noaa.gov> wrote:
indeed what is the holdup? I don't recall anyone saying it was a bad idea in the last discussion.
Do we just need an implementation?
Is the one in the Bug Report not up to snuff? If not, then what's wrong with it? This is just not that hard a problem to solve.
See my comment from over a year ago: <https://bugs.python.org/ issue15873#msg273609>. The proposed patch did not have a C implementation, but we can use the same approach as with strptime and call Python code from C. If users will start complaining about performance, we can speed it up in later releases. Also the new method needs to be documented. Overall, it does not seem to require more than an hour of work from a motivated developer, but the people who contributed to the issue in the past seem to have lost their interest.