There were discussions about having it a function, making the constructor of datetime accept a string(this was strongly rejected), having a static funcion in datetime, etc... and there was no real agreement.

If the agreement is that we want a funcion to be able to parse it I am sure Paul G will be kind to do it (he told me not long ago he was thinking on sending a PR for it). If he is busy I am happy to chip in time this weekend. 

All I wanted when I sent https://bugs.python.org/issue31800 was actually to be able to parse isoformat datetime ^^.



 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 at 00:09, 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.   
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/mariocj89%40gmail.com