[Python-Dev] proposal: add basic time type to the standard library
Guido van Rossum
guido@python.org
Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:37:31 -0500
[me]
> > I wonder how often this is needed. The only occurrences of year() in
> > the entire Zope source that I found are in various test routines.
[Jim]
> These methods and others are used a lot in presentation code,
> which tends to be expressed in DTML or ZPT.
>
> It's not uncommon to select/catagorize things by year or month.
>
> I think most people would find individual date-part methods
> a lot more natural than tuples.
OK, that explains a lot. For this context I agree, although I think
they should probably appear as (computed) attributes rather than
methods. Properties seem perfect.
> > I imagine
> > that once we change strftime() to accept an abstract time object,
> > you'll never need to call either timetuple() or year() -- strftime()
> > will do it for you.
>
> Maybe, if I use strftime, but I don't use strftime all that much.
Maybe you should. :-)
> I can certainly think of even formatting cases (e.g. internationalized
> dates) where it's not adequate.
Then a super-strftime() should be invented that *is* enough, rather
than fumbling with hand-coded solutions.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)