Author belopolsky
Recipients amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, brett.cannon, brian.curtin, daniel.urban, lemburg, mark.dickinson, pitrou, r.david.murray, rhettinger, techtonik, tim.peters, vstinner
Date 2010-06-25.23:29:33
SpamBayes Score 0.0253023
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1277508576.27.0.7628772915.issue7989@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Tim, thanks for your prompt reply.

What would be your opinion on adding datetime.py to the main python tree today?

There is momentum behind several features to be added to datetime module and having easily accessible prototype would give similar benefits to those you had during original design.

It is hard for me to judge the significance of maintenance burden, but others reported that having parallel versions of the io module was helpful.  I believe that with proper support in the regression test suit, it should be quite manageable.  If contributors are encouraged to do python version of new features first, get full test coverage and then do C implementation, it may lead to higher quality contributions.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-06-25 23:29:36belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, lemburg, tim.peters, brett.cannon, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, techtonik, r.david.murray, brian.curtin, daniel.urban
2010-06-25 23:29:36belopolskysetmessageid: <1277508576.27.0.7628772915.issue7989@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-06-25 23:29:34belopolskylinkissue7989 messages
2010-06-25 23:29:33belopolskycreate