[issue7989] Add pure Python implementation of datetime module to CPython

[Marc-Andre Lemburg]

Marc-Andre Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> added the comment:

Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> 
> Alexander Belopolsky <belopolsky at users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Marc-Andre Lemburg <report at bugs.python.org> wrote:
> ..
>> To avoid the wasted memory and import time, it's better to use:
>>
>> try:
>>    from _cmodule import *
>> except ImportError:
>>    from _pymodule import *
>>
> 
> Hmm, I cannot find the relevant thread, but I thought this was rejected at some point.  Personally, I don't like this at all for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. This introduces two _.. names instead of one.
> 
> 2. This departs from established convention that C (or native) implementation for modulename is in _modulename, not _cmodulename.  Non-C implementations may still provide native _modulename, but would not want to call it _cmodulename.
> 
> 3. Hiding python code in _pymodule makes it harder to find it.

Well, you wanted to have two implementation of the same thing in the
stdlib :-) I personally don't think that's a good idea. We've had
trouble in the past of keeping pickle.py and cPickle.c in sync, it's
not going to be much different with those two datetime implementations.

In any case, we shouldn't make regular CPython use of datetime slower
and use more memory, just to make life easier for PyPy.

>> Why not import the two modules directly ?
>>
>> import _cmodule as module
>> and
>> import _pymodule as module
>>
> 
> Because this requires having two modules in the first place.

Where's the problem ? Disk space ?

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7989>
_______________________________________