[Python-Dev] proposal: add basic time type to the standard library

Guido van Rossum guido@python.org
Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:27:16 -0500

> Are you sure Jim is looking to replace the TimeStamp object?  All the
> complaints I've seen aren't about the relatively tiny TimeStamp object, but
> about Zope's relatively huge DateTime class (note that you won't have source
> for that if you're looking at a StandaloneZODB checkout -- DateTime is used
> at higher Zope levels), which is a Python class with a couple dozen(!)
> instance attributes.  See, e.g.,
>     http://dev.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Proposals/ReplacingDateTime
> It seems clear from the source code that TimeStamp is exactly what Jim
> intended it to be <wink>.

I'm notoriously bad at channeling Jim.  Nevertheless, I do recall him
saying he wanted a lightweight time object.  I think the mistake of
DateTime is that it stores the broken-out info, rather than computing
it on request.

> > Your idea of a base type (which presumably standarizes at least one
> > form of representation) sounds like a breakthrough that can help
> > satisfy different other needs.
> Best I can make out, /F is only proposing what Jim would call an Interface:
> the existence of two methods, timetuple() and utctimetuple().  In a comment
> on his page, /F calls it an "abstract" base class, which is more C++-ish
> terminology, and the sample implementation makes clear it's a "pure"
> abstract base class, so same thing as a Jim Interface in the end.

I'll show the PEP to Jim when it appears.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)