Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Sat Apr 27 16:33:45 EDT 2019
I think it’s a good idea.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:43 AM Paul Ganssle <paul at ganssle.io> wrote:
> Some time ago, I proposed adding a `.fromisocalendar` alternate
> constructor to `datetime` (bpo-36004 <https://bugs.python.org/issue36004>),
> with a corresponding implementation (PR #11888
> <https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11888>). I advertised it on
> datetime-SIG some time ago but haven't seen much discussion there, so I'd
> like to bring it to python-dev's attention as we near the cut-off for new
> Python 3.8 features.
> Other than the fact that I've needed this functionality in the past, I
> also think a good general principle for the datetime module is that when a
> class (time, date, datetime) has a "serialization" method (.strftime,
> .timestamp, .isoformat, .isocalendar, etc), there should be a corresponding
> *deserialization* method (.strptime, .fromtimestamp, .fromisoformat) that
> constructs a datetime from the output. Now that `fromisoformat` was
> introduced in Python 3.7, I think `isocalendar` is the only remaining
> method without an inverse. Do people agree with this principle? Should we
> add the `fromisocalendar` method?
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev