Author belopolsky
Recipients Jay.Taylor, Neil Muller, amaury.forgeotdarc, andersjm, belopolsky, catlee, davidfraser, erik.stephens, guettli, hodgestar, jribbens, mark.dickinson, ping, pitrou, r.david.murray, steve.roberts, tim.peters, tomster, vivanov, vstinner, werneck
Date 2011-04-05.00:29:50
SpamBayes Score 1.87576e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <BANLkTi=aP5GU8=AnxUkcAcMjKYCs2Za+2g@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1301953325.82.0.162674835519.issue2736@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Jay Taylor <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
..
> I couldn't agree more with ping's position on this.

Adding votes to a tracker issue without a working patch will not move
it any further.   There are several committers besides me in the nosy
list including the original author of the datetime module.  If it was
such a universally desired feature as Ka-Ping makes it sound, it would
be committed long before I became the maintainer of the datetime
module.

>  It is against the spirit of what Python has set out to be, and the blocking needs to stop.

I don't think any committer has a power to *block* a patch.  I
certainly don't.  If  Ka-Ping wants to add a feature over my
objections, it is well within his power to do so. (Note that I
objected to timedelta.total_seconds(), but it was added nevertheless.)
 It would be best, however to bring this to python-dev or python-ideas
first.

> Any chance we could get a .epoch() function into python 2.7 as well?

No.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-04-05 00:29:51belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, tim.peters, ping, jribbens, guettli, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, davidfraser, pitrou, andersjm, catlee, vstinner, tomster, werneck, hodgestar, Neil Muller, erik.stephens, steve.roberts, r.david.murray, vivanov, Jay.Taylor
2011-04-05 00:29:50belopolskylinkissue2736 messages
2011-04-05 00:29:50belopolskycreate