[Python-Dev] proposal: add basic time type to the standard library
Guido van Rossum
guido@python.org
Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:22:24 -0500
Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:22:24 -0500
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] proposal: add basic time type to the standard library
- Next message: [Python-Dev] proposal: add basic time type to the standard library
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> Guido van Rossum writes: > > In that case, I take back everything I've said about Jim Fulton's > > requirements. I'm quite sure that in the past he said he needed a > > very lightweight date/time object, but from what you say it appears > > this need has disappeared. > > He wanted this for the catalog, and I suspect he still does. Both > size and performance (of comparisons) were important, not rendering > time. Is comparison the same what Tim mentioned as range searches? I guess a representation like current Zope timestamps or what time.time() returns is fine for that -- it is monononous even if not necessarily continuous. I guess a broken-out time tuple is much harder to compare. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] proposal: add basic time type to the standard library
- Next message: [Python-Dev] proposal: add basic time type to the standard library
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]