On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Antoine Pitrou <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
..
> I agree with Victor that the APIs need improving, even if it involves providing obvious replacements of obscure one-liners.

While I agree that the datetime API can be improved, I don't think
Victor's proposal does that.  The advantage of an obscure one-liner is
that it is obvious what it does, particularly for someone with a
C/UNIX background.  dt.totimestamp() may be easier to write, but it is
entirely non-obvious what it will return.  One would expect that
dt.totimestamp() is the inverse of datetime.fromtimestamp(timestamp),
but in timezones with daylight savings adjustments, but such inverse
may not always exist.  (01:59AM may be followed by 02:00 AM or by
01:00 AM. so on changeover days datetime(y, m, d, 1, 30).totimestamp()
is either ambiguous or undefined.)   As I suggested in my previous
comment, this problem can be resolved, but we are not there yet.

> As an occasional user of datetime and time modules, I have too often wanted to curse those limited, awkwardly inconsistent APIs.

Yes, it would be ideal if a user of datetime module would not need to
reach to other modules for date/time calculations.  See also
<http://bugs.python.org/issue6280>.   Do you have other examples of
this sort?