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

[M.-A. Lemburg]

"Fred L. Drake, Jr." wrote:
> 
> Guido van Rossum writes:
>  > Is comparison the same what Tim mentioned as range searches?  I guess
>  > a representation like current Zope timestamps or what time.time()
>  > returns is fine for that -- it is monononous even if not necessarily
>  > continuous.  I guess a broken-out time tuple is much harder to compare.
> 
> Yes; as long as ordering is easy to check, we're fine with a long int
> or some such thing.  The range search is indeed the specific
> application Jim has in mind.

Uhm... I think this thread is heading in the wrong direction. 

Fredrik wasn't proposing a solution to Jim's particular
problem (whatever it was ;-), but instead opting for a solution 
of a large number of Python users out there. 

While mxDateTime probably works for most of them (and is used by 
pretty much all major database modules out there), some may feel 
that they don't want to rely on external libs for their software 
to run on.

I would be willing to make the mxDateTime types subtypes of 
whatever Fredrik comes up with. The only requirement I have is
that the binary footprint of the types needs to match todays
layout of mxDateTime types since I need to maintain binary
compatibility.

The other possibility would be adding a set of new types
to mxDateTime which focus on low memory requirements rather
than data roundtrip safety and speed.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH
______________________________________________________________________
Company & Consulting:                           http://www.egenix.com/
Python Software:                   http://www.egenix.com/files/python/