➜

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 p-ganssle
Recipients belopolsky, berker.peksag, bmispelon, corona10, p-ganssle, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, taleinat, vstinner
Date 2019-09-02.02:04:49
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1567389889.88.0.251982091836.issue24416@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content 
> Dong-hee Na, if you want to make a fresh PR for this and bring it to fruition, I would be happy to review and apply it.

It seems premature to say that you will accept a PR for this when there's no consensus for actually adding the feature, and it would be good to probably work out if it's even desirable before asking contributors to do more work on it.

It seems like it would be better to argue the point of *why* you think a structseq actually solves the problem here. Is a struct sequence more backwards compatible than a namedtuple? Less? Is it as performant? Will it make it easier or harder to maintain compatibility between the C and pure Python implementations of the datetime module?
History
Date User Action Args
2019-09-02 02:04:49p-gansslesetrecipients: + p-ganssle, rhettinger, belopolsky, vstinner, taleinat, berker.peksag, serhiy.storchaka, bmispelon, corona10
2019-09-02 02:04:49p-gansslesetmessageid: <1567389889.88.0.251982091836.issue24416@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-09-02 02:04:49p-gansslelinkissue24416 messages
2019-09-02 02:04:49p-gansslecreate