[Zope-dev] Re: Options replacing DateTime with datetime!?

[Andreas Jung]

--On 28. August 2007 12:04:35 +0100 Laurence Rowe <l at lrowe.co.uk> wrote:

> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> <snip />
>>> I believe that "datetime" is not even importable in TTW code
>>> and "datetime" objects not accessible in TTW code -- at least,
>>> they have not been until recently...
>>
>> allow_module('datetime') is all you had to do. Ok, admittedly, pure-TTW
>> developers who can't or won't touch filesystem code were out of luck,
>> but everybody who *knew* about datetime and wanted to use it could have
>> done so.
>
> There are a lot of pure TTW developers, they don't tend to be vocal on
> these lists though. It would be really good to get the datetime module
> allowed for them, along with set and frozenset which are now built in.
>

I am not sure if TTW developers would be happy with the pure datetime API.
datetime basically exposes one useful method for TTW developers: strftime().
DateTime has a much richer API for doing useful things, less useful things 
and stupid things. I came across python-dateutil some days ago

<http://labix.org/python-dateutil>

which appears really impressive to me (and useful). python-dateutil + 
datetime would be an equivalent replacement for DateTime.

Just for the logs: I gave up my work on an inplace DateTime migration..
too compliated, too much cruft would have to remain for backward 
compatibility. Let's see how we can address the issue in a reasonable way 
:-)

Andreas



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/attachments/20070901/8899b0b4/attachment.bin