Message113073
The original RFE at issue 7989 was:
"""
After discussion on numerous issues, python-dev, and here at the PyCon sprints, it seems to be a good idea to move timemodule.c to _timemodule.c and convert as much as possible into pure Python. The same change seems good for datetime.c as well.
"""
See msg99774. I have changed issue 7989 to cover datetime only because I argued that as a thin wrapper around C library calls, this module is an exception to the general rule that pure python implementations are a good idea. See msg107303.
No I realize that in order to break circular dependency between time and datetime modules, it will be helpful to create an _time module that would provide lower than time module access to system facilities and datetime and time modules would be use _time module to implement higher level interfaces either in C or in Python.
I believe _time module should become the home of the gettimeofday() method and pure python implementation of time.time() will be
def time()
s, us = _time.gettimeofday()
return s + 1e-6 * us
Similarly time.sleep() can be implemented in terms of lower level POSIX nanosleep() method.
Lower level localtime() function can provide access to tm_zone and tm_gmtoff members of struct tm (where available) without concerns about backward compatibility. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-08-06 04:33:24 | belopolsky | set | recipients:
+ belopolsky, lemburg, tim.peters, brett.cannon, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, davidfraser, pitrou, vstinner, techtonik, giampaolo.rodola, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, brian.curtin, daniel.urban |
2010-08-06 04:33:23 | belopolsky | set | messageid: <1281069203.79.0.816772507809.issue9528@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-08-06 04:33:20 | belopolsky | link | issue9528 messages |
2010-08-06 04:33:16 | belopolsky | create | |
|