[Python-Dev] Please have a look at proposed doc changes for time epoch

[Skip Montanaro]

    mal> Tim Peters wrote:
    >> 
    >> [Skip Montanaro about deficiencies in the time module]

    mal> Why don't you use mxDateTime ? It provides a platform independent
    mal> layer on top of all the C lib confusion underneath.

    mal> Also, the representable time range is 

    mal>        -5851455-01-01 00:00:00.00 - 5867440-12-31 00:00:00.00

    mal> ... should cover most people's needs ;-)

I think we're getting a bit far removed from the original context here.  I'm
quite well aware of mx.DateTime and use it in my own code.  I was assigned a
bug report about the calendar module:

    http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=434143&group_id=5470&atid=105470

nThe tail end of the traceback is a ValueError generated by time.mktime
whose message suggests that it accepts years in the range 00-99 and 1900+.
I don't think it's reasonable to try and make time.mktime "work", so I
propose that we make the documentation and exception messages more
forthcoming about its platform-dependence.

Personally, I think adding mx.DateTime to the core wouldn't be a bad idea.
Python's date manipulation code is in need of some more cojones.  2.2 is
probably too near, but that's ultimately for the PythonLabs folks to decide.

Skip