[DB-SIG] Remaining issues with DB API 1.1
Sat, 27 Mar 1999 01:43:23 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> · Require a constructor to take Unix ticks as input for timestamp
> values ? What about time (without date part) and date (without
> time part) values ?
> Well, you know my POV: ticks are a bad thing for serious DB interfacing
> and there are ways to convert them to the broken down values needed for
> the constructors.
OTOH, ticks are pretty ubiquitous. Supplying a constructor that uses them
isn't a big deal; mxDateTime has one, right? Certainly it should not be
the only constructor, but available as an alternative.
I'm agreeable to everything else. I would help on the spelling/grammar but
I will probably be spending this weekend working on a Python intro for the
local ACM chapter that I'm presenting on tuesday.
Andy Dustman (ICQ#32922760) You should always say "spam" and "eggs"
ComStar Communications Corp. instead of "foo" and "bar"
(706) 549-7689 | PGP KeyID=0xC72F3F1D in Python examples. (Mark Lutz)