Message109144
| 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 | 2010-07-02.22:14:48 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.006612044 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <AANLkTilGGDJPTXm9q7OPo37vjmuLOgQPLF_v-9VkeMDx@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1278108009.8.0.994780999514.issue7989@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Tim Peters <report@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> added the comment: > >> Do you remember why it was a good idea to >> derive datetime from date? > > Why not? A datetime is a date, but with additional behavior. Makes inheritance conceptually natural. It is also time with additional behavior. In the face of ambiguity ... Why not? See issue #5516. Most of datetime comparison code is devoted to fighting inheritance from date. There is hardly any non-trivial method that benefits from this inheritance. To me, conceptually, datetime is a container of date, time and optionally time zone, it is not a date. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-07-02 22:14:51 | belopolsky | set | recipients: + belopolsky, lemburg, tim.peters, brett.cannon, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, techtonik, r.david.murray, brian.curtin, daniel.urban |
| 2010-07-02 22:14:48 | belopolsky | link | issue7989 messages |
| 2010-07-02 22:14:48 | belopolsky | create | |