On 16Jun2010 10:37, Brett Cannon email@example.com wrote: | On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 00:56, M.-A. Lemburg firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: | > Brett Cannon wrote: | >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:01, Cameron Simpson email@example.com wrote: | >>> On 15Jun2010 10:47, Alexander Belopolsky firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: | >>> | I've reread my post and have to admit that I did not explain this | >>> | point clearly. There are currently three different ways to represent | >>> | a point in time: datetime object, unix timestamp, and a 9-element time | >>> | tuple. While the datetime module has its share of criticism, its | >>> | interfaces are more user friendly and more "pythonic" than C inspired | >>> | time module interfaces. | >>> | >>> Personally, I would be happy to see unix-timestamp and datetime object, | >>> and see the time tuples go away. [...] | >> I agree with this sentiment. The UNIX timestamp stuff should stay in | >> time, the time tuple stuff should just go, and datetime should be | >> fleshed out to handle all the stuff that is not a direct wrapping | >> around libc. [...] | > -1. | > Please note that the time module provides access to low-level OS | > provided services which the datetime module does not expose. | > You cannot seriously expect that an application which happily uses | > the time module (only) for its limited date/time functionality | > to have to be rewritten just to stay compatible with Python. | | No, but the work to move people off of time tuples and over to | datetime objects or timestamps can start so that the next stdlib reorg | can drop time tuples without causing major pains.
"I agree with this sentiment." :-)
I, also, was insufficiently clear. I don't want any code to break, and Alexander's proposal describes a non-breaking approach. I would like my earlier statement to be read as wanting it to be possible to work with unixtimes and datetimes and never need to use a time tuple, and for the documentation to direct users to datetimes and unixtimes as the obvious and sufficent way to do things.
[...] | I don't care as much about the rename as I do about losing time tuples | in the long run. | | > The only improvement I could see, would be to move | > calendar.timegm() to the time module, since that's where | > it belongs (keeping an alias in the calendar module, of | > course). | | That should definitely happen at some point.
+1 to the above too. That the "Use the following functions to convert between time representations" table near the top of the "time" module documentation reaches for the calendar module grates.