This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

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 2010-07-02.22:48:20
SpamBayes Score 0.0150215
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <AANLkTin_h10ueroEPSKSodCJGrlbxOoOdFQWX6qawrmG@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1278109563.29.0.463513070538.issue7989@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Tim Peters <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
..
> I'm not going to argue about whether datetime "should have been" subclassed from date - fact is that it was, and since it was
> Guido's idea from the start, he wouldn't change it now even if his time machine weren't out for repairs ;-)

I know, he will probably accept the fact that 23:59:60 is valid time
first. :-)  I still very much appreciate your insights.

I think I mentioned that in my other posts, but I find datetime design
very elegant and when I find things that I would have done differently
my first reaction is that I am probably missing something.

datetime(date) inheritance is one of those things.  Another is tzinfo
attribute of time.  With time t, t.utcoffset() is kid of useless given
that you cannot subtract it from t and unless tzinfo is a fixed offset
timezone, there is not enough information in t to compute the offset
to begin with.

Do you have any historical insight on this one?
History
Date User Action Args
2010-07-02 22:48:23belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, lemburg, tim.peters, brett.cannon, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, techtonik, r.david.murray, brian.curtin, daniel.urban
2010-07-02 22:48:21belopolskylinkissue7989 messages
2010-07-02 22:48:20belopolskycreate