i suggest that division be defined for timedelta1/timedelta2, in that
sense that it gives how many times timedelta2 fits in timedelta1 (ie the
usual meaning of division), using integer arithmetics for floor division
(//) and returning float for truediv (/ after `from __future__ import
division`)

use case
--------

aside from the obvious how-many-times-does-a-fit-into-b, this solves the
issue of having individual methods for conversion to a number of
seconds, hours, days or nanocenturies (as described in #1673409).
example:

from datetime import timedelta
duration = timedelta(hours=1.5, seconds=20)
print "Until the time is up, you can listen to 'We will rock you' %d
times."%(duration//timedelta(minutes=5, seconds=3))
import time
time.sleep(duration/timedelta(seconds=1))


history
-------

this issue follows a discussion on python-list, re-initiated by [1].

there have previously been similar feature requests on datetime, most of
which have been rejected due to ambiguities (e.g. [2]), conflicts with
time_t or issues with time zones.

the only issue i've seen that can be relevant here is the
integer-vs-float discussion, which is here handled by floordiv (//) and
truediv.

patch
-----

i've written a patch against svn trunk revision 62520.

it uses function pointers to reduce code duplication; in case this
inappropriate here, i also have a pointerless version.

i familiar with c but not experienced, especially with the python ways
of writing c. most of the code is just adapted from other functions in
the same files, so it is probably, but should nevertheless checked with
special care.

i've also added test, but am not sure what has to be tested and what not.


compatibility
-------------

only cases in which division would fail without the patch are changed.
this will be a problem if (and only if) someone divides unknown objects
and waits for TypeError to be raised.
such behavior is probably rare.


[1] <mid:4813CD56.40800@eml.cc>,
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2008-April/488406.html
[2] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2002-March/020604.html

this is the mentioned patch without the function pointers, in case it
better fits the python coding style.

I attaching webograph's patch updated to revision 67223 where I added a 
few tests.

I am +1 on the floor divide changes (allowing timedelta // timedelta), 
but I am not sure how true division should work if at all.  For the sake 
of argument, let's assume from __future__ import division or py3k.  
Currently: 

>>> timedelta(1)/2
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for /: 'datetime.timedelta' and 
'int'
>>> timedelta(1)/timedelta(2)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for /: 'datetime.timedelta' and 
'datetime.timedelta'

With this patch, timedelta(1)/2 is still unsupported, but

>>> timedelta(1)/timedelta(2)
0.5

Note that this is probably correct behavior because timedelta/int true 
division does not make much sense, but there is a proposal (see issue1083) to make timedelta/int equivalent to timedelta//int.  (I am 
against issue1083 proposal and for webograph's approach, but this needs 
to be further discussed.)

Also, I've added a test that demonstrates the following behavior:

>>> int(timedelta.min/(timedelta.min//3))
2

This is not a bug in webograph's patch, but rather a bug in long true 
division, but it shows that true division may not be as useful as it 
seems.

Why not also implementing divmod()? It's useful to split a timedelta 
into, for example, (hours, minutes, seconds):

def formatTimedelta(delta):
    """
    >>> formatTimedelta(timedelta(hours=1, minutes=24, seconds=19))
    '1h 24min 19sec'
    """
    hours, minutes = divmodTimedelta(delta, timedelta(hours=1))
    minutes, seconds = divmodTimedelta(minutes, timedelta(minutes=1))
    seconds, fraction = divmodTimedelta(seconds, timedelta(seconds=1))
    return "{0}h {1}min {2}sec".format(hours, minutes, seconds)

My implementation gives divmod(timedelta, timedelta) -> (long, 
timedelta). It's a little bit strange to get two different types in 
the result. The second return value is the remainder. My example works 
in the reverse order of the classical code:

def formatSeconds(seconds):
    """
    >>> formatTimedelta(1*3600 + 24*60 + 19)
    '1h 24min 19sec'
    """
    minutes, seconds = divmod(seconds, 60)
    hours, minutes = divmod(minutes, 60)
    return "{0}h {1}min {2}sec".format(hours, minutes, seconds)
    
About my new patch:
 - based on datetime_datetime_division_dupcode.patch
 - create divmod() operation on (timedelta, timedelta)
 - add unit tests for the division (floor and true division) and 
divmod
 - update the documentation for the true division and divmod

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM, STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> STINNER Victor <victor.stinner@haypocalc.com> added the comment:
>
> Why not also implementing divmod()? It's useful to split a timedelta
> into, for example, (hours, minutes, seconds):

I agree and in this case mod should probably be implemented too.

With your patch:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for %: 'datetime.timedelta' and
'datetime.timedelta'

Also, why not

>>> divmod(timedelta(3), 2)
(datetime.timedelta(1), datetime.timedelta(1))

?

And where do we stop? :-)

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
<belopolsky@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM, STINNER Victor 
<report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>>
>> STINNER Victor <victor.stinner@haypocalc.com> added the comment:
>>
>> Why not also implementing divmod()? It's useful to split a timedelta
>> into, for example, (hours, minutes, seconds):
>
> I agree and in this case mod should probably be implemented too.
>
> With your patch:
>
>>>> timedelta(3)%timedelta(2)
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
> TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for %: 'datetime.timedelta' and
> 'datetime.timedelta'
>

Since timedelta(3) // 2 is already accepted, divmod should also accept 
integers (but not float).

With the last patch and "from __future__ import division", we support:
  timedelta // <timedelta or int>
  timedelta / timedelta
  divmod(timedelta, timedelta)

What do you think about:
  timedelta / <timedelta or int or float>  # only with __future__.divison
  timedelta // <timedelta or int>
  timedelta % <timedelta or int>
  divmod(timedelta, <timedelta or int>)
with:
  timedelta // int -> timedelta
  timedelta // timedelta -> int
  timedelta % int -> timedelta
  timedelta % timedelta -> int
  divmod(timedelta, int) -> (timedelta, timedelta)
  divmod(timedelta, timedelta) -> (int, timedelta)
  timedelta / <anything> -> float # __future__.divison

While I agree that divmod may be useful, your particular use case is
not convincing. The same can be done easier without divmod:

def formatTimedelta(delta):
   return "{0}h {1}min {2}sec".format(*str(delta).split(':'))

or you can convert delta to time using an arbitrary anchor date and
extract hms that way:

(1, 24, 19)

(depending on your needs you may want to add delta.days*24 to the hours)

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM, STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> STINNER Victor <victor.stinner@haypocalc.com> added the comment:
>
> Why not also implementing divmod()? It's useful to split a timedelta
> into, for example, (hours, minutes, seconds):
>
> def formatTimedelta(delta):
>    """
>    >>> formatTimedelta(timedelta(hours=1, minutes=24, seconds=19))
>    '1h 24min 19sec'
>    """
>    hours, minutes = divmodTimedelta(delta, timedelta(hours=1))
>    minutes, seconds = divmodTimedelta(minutes, timedelta(minutes=1))
>    seconds, fraction = divmodTimedelta(seconds, timedelta(seconds=1))
>    return "{0}h {1}min {2}sec".format(hours, minutes, seconds)
>

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM, STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
..
> What do you think about:
>  timedelta / <timedelta or int or float>  # only with __future__.divison
>  timedelta // <timedelta or int>
>  timedelta % <timedelta or int>
>  divmod(timedelta, <timedelta or int>)
> with:
>  timedelta // int -> timedelta
already there

+1

+1

+1

timedelta % float -> timedelta (because int % float -> int works) ?

+1

+1

divmod(timedelta, float) -> (timedelta, timedelta) ?

-1

Only timedelta / timedelta should produce dimensionless numbers.
timedelta / <float or int> should be disallowed in true division mode.
 I am +0 on timedelta / timedelta -> float in true division mode.

Oops, the tracker ate some lines from e-mail.  Reposting through the 
web:

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM, STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org> 
wrote:
..
> What do you think about:
>  timedelta / <timedelta or int or float>  # only with 
__future__.divison
>  timedelta // <timedelta or int>
>  timedelta % <timedelta or int>
>  divmod(timedelta, <timedelta or int>)
> with:
>  timedelta // int -> timedelta
already there

>  timedelta // timedelta -> int
+1

>  timedelta % int -> timedelta
+1

>  timedelta % timedelta -> int
+1

timedelta % float -> timedelta (because int % float -> int works) ?

>  divmod(timedelta, int) -> (timedelta, timedelta)
+1

>  divmod(timedelta, timedelta) -> (int, timedelta)
+1

divmod(timedelta, float) -> (timedelta, timedelta) ?

>  timedelta / <anything> -> float # __future__.divison
-1

Only timedelta / timedelta should produce dimensionless numbers.
timedelta / <float or int> should be disallowed in true division mode.
 I am +0 on timedelta / timedelta -> float in true division mode.
Reply
		
Forward

> def formatTimedelta(delta):
>    return "{0}h {1}min {2}sec".format(*str(delta).split(':'))

OMG, this is ugly! Conversion to string and reparse the formatted text :-/ 
Your code doesn't work with different units than hours, minutes or seconds:

['4 days, 1', '32', '01']
>>> str(timedelta(hours=1, minutes=32, seconds=1, microseconds=2)).split(":")
['1', '32', '01.000002']

> or you can convert delta to time using an arbitrary anchor date
> and extract hms that way:

How? I don't understand your suggestion.

> (depending on your needs you may want to add delta.days*24 to the hours)

The goal of the new operators (timedelta / timedelta, divmod(timedelta, 
timedelta), etc.) is to avoid the use of the timedelta "internals" (days, 
seconds and microseconds attributes) and give a new "natural" way to process 
time deltas.

haypo> How? I don't understand your suggestion.

Sorry, another case of mail to tracker bug.  Here is what I wrote:

"""
.. you can convert delta to time using an arbitrary anchor date and
extract hms that way:

>>> x = datetime(1,1,1) + timedelta(hours=1, minutes=24, seconds=19)
>>> x.hour,x.minute,x.second
(1, 24, 19)

(depending on your needs you may want to add delta.days*24 to the hours)
"""

but tracker ate the '>>>' lines :-(

@webograph: time_gmtime() and time_localtime() already use function 
pointer. I prefer function pointer than code duplication!

> timedelta / <float or int> should be disallowed in true division mode.

I don't understand this;  why should the division mode affect
division operations involving timedeltas at all?  The meaning
of "/" is unaffected by the division mode for float/float or
float/int;  why should timedeltas be any different?

I vote +1 for timedelta/timedelta and timedelta/float (regardless
of division mode).  timedelta / timedelta is the one obvious way
to find out 'how many A's in B', and the one that it's natural
to try first, before looking for (timedelta -> float) conversion
methods.

By the way, I assume that any plan to add this division would also include 
adding the inverse operation:

timedelta * float -> timedelta.

It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to have one without the other.

Some examples to help the choice (using the last patch).

int
---

2L
>>> print dt2 * 2
3:08:38
>>> print dt1 - dt2 * 2
0:51:22
>>> divmod(dt1, dt2)
(2L, datetime.timedelta(0, 3082))
>>> print timedelta(0, 3082)
0:51:22

In 4 hours, you can watch the movie twice, and then your have 51 minutes left.

Operations used:
 - timedelta // timedelta
 - timedelta * int
 - divmod(timedelta, timedelta)

float
-----

0.21258172822053367
>>> "Progress: %.1f%%" % ((dt1 / dt2) * 100.0)
'Progress: 21.3%'
>>> dt2 * 0.75
...
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for *: 'datetime.timedelta' and 'float'
>>> print (dt2 * 3) // 4
1:10:44.250000

If you are seen this movie since 20 minutes, you're at 21% of the total. If 
you want to jump to 75%, it will be at 1:10:44.

Note: timedelta * float is not implemented yet.

Operations used:
 - timedelta / timedelta
 - timedelta * int and timedelta // int (because timdelta / float is 
   not implemented yet)

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:08 AM, Mark Dickinson <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Mark Dickinson <dickinsm@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
>> timedelta / <float or int> should be disallowed in true division mode.
>
> I don't understand this;  why should the division mode affect
> division operations involving timedeltas at all?

Here is how I think about this:  timedeltas are integers in units of
time.  For simplicity, let's assume we always express timedeltas in
microseconds (us), so timedeltas are things like 1us, 2us, etc.  As
with integers,  we can define true division (/) and floor division
(//) so that 3us/2us = 1.5 and 3us//2us = 1.  Note that the result is
dimensionless.  Similarly, you can divide timedeltas by  dimensionless
integers: 3us/2 = 1.5us and 3us//2 = 1us.  However in python you
cannot have a timedelta representing 1.5us, so timedelta(0, 0, 3)/2
should be en error.  In order to have a timedelta/int true division,
we would need to have another type floattimedelta which would be a
floating point number in units of time.

>  The meaning of "/" is unaffected by the division mode for float/float or
> float/int;  why should timedeltas be any different?

Because they are integers.  If we had a floattimedelta type that would
store timestamp as a float, its division would rightfully not be
affected by the division mode.

> I vote +1 for timedelta/timedelta and timedelta/float (regardless
> of division mode).

What do you vote  timedelta/timedelta should produce in floor division
mode: an int or a float? and what should  timedelta/float produce: a
timedelta or a float?

I'm finally opposed to datetime.totimedelta() => float, I 
prefer .totimedelta() => (second, microsecond) which means (int,int). 
But I like timedelta/timedelta => float, eg. to compute a progression 
percent. Anyone interested by my last patch (implement 
timedelta/timedelta and divmod(timedelta, timedelta)?

I think datetime division would be a fine application for Fractions.

Hi all,

I'm trying to help out by reviewing issues in the tracker... so this is 
just a first attempt and I hope it is somewhat useful. This issue covers 
a number of discrete functional changes. I here review each in turn:

1) Allow truediv, the operator '/', to be applied to two timedeltas 
(e.g. td1 / td2). The return value is a float representing the number of 
times that td2 goes into td1.

Evaluation: Since both time deltas are quantitative values of the same 
unit, it makes sense they should be able to support basic math 
operations. In this case, operation to be added is '/' or truediv. I 
would personally find this functionality useful, and believe it is a 
natural addition to the code.

Recommendation: That this functionality be recommended for development

2) Allow truediv to be applied to a timedelta and an int or float. The 
return value is a timedelta representing the fractional proportion of 
the original timedelta.

Evaluation: This makes total sense.
Recommendation: That this functionality be recommended for development

2) Allow divmod, the operator '%', to be applied to two timedeltas (e.g. 
td1 % td2). I think there is some debate here about whether the return 
value be an integer in microsends, or a timedelta. I personally believe 
that a timedelta should be returned, representing the amount of time 
remaining after (td1 // td2)  * td2 has been subtracted.

The alternative is an integer, but due to a lack of immediate clarity 
over what time quanta this integer represents, I would suggest returning 
a unit amount. There is also some discussion of returning (long, 
timedelta), but I personally fail to see the merits of returning the 
long without some unit attached.

3) Allow divmod, the operator '%', to be applied to a timedelta and an 
integer or float. (e.g. <timedelta> % 3). I'm not quite as sold on this.  
I suggest that more discussion is required to flesh this out further.


A patch has been attached which implements some of this behaviour. I 
would suggest that it's valuable to start doing this work in discrete 
chunks so that progress can be begun before the issues under debate are 
resolved. I suggest that it would be appropriate to create three smaller 
issues, each tackling just one piece of functionality. This should make 
the changes more atomic and the code patch simpler.

-T

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Tennessee Leeuwenburg
<report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
..
> 2) Allow divmod, the operator '%', to be applied to two timedeltas (e.g.
> td1 % td2). I think there is some debate here about whether the return
> value be an integer in microsends, or a timedelta. I personally believe
> that a timedelta should be returned, representing the amount of time
> remaining after (td1 // td2)  * td2 has been subtracted.
>
> The alternative is an integer, but due to a lack of immediate clarity
> over what time quanta this integer represents, I would suggest returning
> a unit amount. There is also some discussion of returning (long,
> timedelta), but I personally fail to see the merits of returning the
> long without some unit attached.
>

I don't think this alternative was ever seriously considered and no
patch was ever proposed to do it that way.  Victor's latest patch
implements divmod(timedelta, timedelta) -> (int, timedelta) and
therefore timedelta % timedelta -> timedelta.

i don't think this can be solved in a way that is independent of the
chosen unit, as it requires a concept of "whole time-units" (as in
"whole numbers"); whether these be seconds or minutes would be
completely arbitrary.

(`5 minutes % 3 = 0 minutes` would be true if based on seconds because
`5 minutes = 3 * 100 seconds + 0 minutes` but `5 minutes % 3 = 2
minutes` based on minutes because `5 minutes = 3 * 1 minute + 2 minutes`.)

A comment on the two most recent patches...  For both of these, we can
do the following:

>>> from datetime import timedelta
>>> td = timedelta(12)
>>> td
datetime.timedelta(12)
>>> td //= 3
>>> td
datetime.timedelta(4)
>>> td //= timedelta(2)
>>> td
2          # CHANGED VARIABLE TYPE!

I think the last operation will trap unsuspecting programmers, and
provide no benefit for the savvy.  There really is no reason to allow an
in-place operation like this to change the type of the variable so
drastically.  (That is, I realize a similar thing could happen with ints
and floats, but it seems worse with timedeltas and ints.)  I feel the
last operation should raise a TypeError, even though it would be quite
valid for a non-in-place operation.

Well, this already happen with other types:

>>> a   = 100
>>> a //= 2.0
>>> a
50.0

>>> d  = datetime.datetime.now()
>>> d -= datetime.datetime.now()
>>> d
datetime.timedelta(-1, 86391, 609000)

See http://docs.python.org/reference/datamodel.html#object.__iadd__
"... return the result (which could be, but does not have to be, self) ..."

Is there a good reason why this issue is languishing? The requested functionality seems to be well motivated, simple to implement with few objections resolved in the discussion.

I wonder if it would be helpful to limit this patch to 3.x series.  That way some of the controversies about true vs. floor division would disappear and it will be easier to accept new features.

It's too late for 2.7 anyway.

I am attaching a forward port of Victor's timedelta_true_divide_divmod.patch to py3k.

Why is divmod(timedelta, timedelta) supported but not timedelta % timedelta?  I think if one is implemented, the other should be too.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Mark Dickinson <report@bugs.python.org>wrote:

I noticed that as I was porting Victor's patch.   I did not add  timedelta %
timedelta because I found out that timedelta % int is not supported in the
released versions while timedelta // int is.

I was contemplating opening a separate RFE for divmod(timedelta, int)
and timedelta % int because I feel that increasing the number of added
features will reduce the likelihood of patch being accepted.  Personally, I
only had need for  timedelta // timedelta in my code and not any other
proposed features.

By the way, the patch looks good to me, as far as it goes, and I'm +1 on adding all this.  I only have the tiniest of nits:

 - the patch deletes a line at the top of Lib/test/test_datetime.py, for no apparent reason

 - in delta_add, I think the added 'if' block should be an 'else if' (yes, I know this is excessively picky ;)

 - the brace style for if blocks is inconsistent:  please put the opening brace on the same line as the if.

One other thought:  with this division operation added, it might be nice to add constants like td_hour, td_minute, etc. to the module.  Then the perennial 'how can I convert my timedelta x to minutes' questions could be answered with 'just do x/td_minute'.  I would personally find x/td_second to be a more obvious and natural way to find the total number of seconds in a timedelta than x.total_seconds.  I also quite like the idea of being able to create a 2.5-hour timedelta with something like

2*td_hour + 30*td_minute

On the other hand, maybe such constants would just be added clutter, since it's easy to create them when needed.

Tennessee, are you still tracking this issue?  If not, can I steal it from you.  :)

> I found out that timedelta % int is not supported in the
> released versions while timedelta // int is.

Mmm.  Interesting.  :)

I think it would be fine to add timedelta % timedelta in this patch, and then open another feature request for timedelta % int and friends as you suggest.  I don't think divmod(timedelta, timedelta) should go in if timedelta % timedelta doesn't also go in.

> I feel that increasing the number of added
> features will reduce the likelihood of patch being accepted.

Perhaps;  I haven't seen much opposition to these ideas anyway---I think the only reason they haven't been implemented yet is lack of round-tuits.

I'd be +1 on accepting the current patch if timedelta % timedelta were added to it.

Hmm.  Having timedelta // int work is *really* peculiar, since it can only be made sense of with reference to some implicit particular chosen unit of time;  in this case, that unit of time is apparently microseconds, as far as I can tell.

Surely there aren't any applications for timedelta // int?!  The operation just doesn't make dimensional sense, since it involves taking floor of a timedelta.

I vote -3.2 minutes on extending this craziness by adding timedelta % int or divmod(timedelta, int).

I should be able to add timedelta % timedelta and fix the nits that Mark mentioned tonight.

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Mark Dickinson <report@bugs.python.org>wrote:

>
> Mark Dickinson <dickinsm@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> Tennessee, are you still tracking this issue?  If not, can I steal it from
> you.  :)
>

Hi Mark,

Please feel free to steal it from me! Wonderful to see some movement on this
issue...

> > I found out that timedelta % int is not supported in the
> > released versions while timedelta // int is.
>
> Mmm.  Interesting.  :)
>
> I think it would be fine to add timedelta % timedelta in this patch, and
> then open another feature request for timedelta % int and friends as you
> suggest.  I don't think divmod(timedelta, timedelta) should go in if
> timedelta % timedelta doesn't also go in.
>

I'm an incrementalist -- I'm happy with one step at a time, so for what it's
worth I'd be happy to see divmod go in alone with % to be added later.
However, seeing as I'm really contributing, I'd say feel free to disregard
my vote of +1... :)

Regards,
-Tennessee

New patch, issue2706a.diff, implements timedelta % timedelta and addresses  Mark's code review comments.


With respect to Mark's
"""
One other thought:  with this division operation added, it might be nice to add constants like td_hour, td_minute, etc. to the module.  Then the perennial 'how can I convert my timedelta x to minutes' questions could be answered with 'just do x/td_minute'.  I would personally find x/td_second to be a more obvious and natural way to find the total number of seconds in a timedelta than x.total_seconds.  I also quite like the idea of being able to create a 2.5-hour timedelta with something like

2*td_hour + 30*td_minute

On the other hand, maybe such constants would just be added clutter, since it's easy to create them when needed.
"""

I dislike this proposal for the same reason as Mark likes it: 2*td_hour + 30*td_minute == timedelta(hours=2, minutes=30) is a violation of TOOWTDI.

Stealing from Tennessee...

Patch committed to py3k in r80290, r80291, with some minor tweaks and fixes:

 - rename delta_remailder to delta_remainder
 - fix memory leak in delta_remainder
 - add whatsnew entry for docs
 - note that timedelta // timedelta returns an integer in docs
 - add tests for raising ZeroDivisionError, and remove uses of
   lambda in favour of using the operator module

Thanks, Alexander!

Grr.  s/whatsnew/versionadded/

Can someone (Mark?) add an acknowledgment for Victor Stinner to the NEWS file?  My py3k patch was 90% code from Victor's trunk patch.

Ah, yes.  Sorry, Victor!  There's actually no acknowledgement in Misc/NEWS:  it's not *that* common to put acknowledgements there, and I'm not sure it's necessary here, but I've fixed the commit message.