homepage

...in seconds-based library functions (e.g. time.sleep) and calculations
(e.g. distance = velocity * ?).

Please include a proper description of your problem, and a patch
description when you post a patch.

I did add a patch description: "Adds a datetime.total_seconds attribute"
- is that unclear?
The idea is that you should be able to extract the total number of
seconds in the duration i.e.
>>> dt = datetime.timedelta(seconds=1234567.89)
>>> dt.total_seconds
1234567.89

I saw the patch description as well, but usually you put that
description, and perhaps a motivation as well, in the comment. That way
it's easier for people to directly see what an issue is about.

OK, a bit on motivation:
1. datetime.timedelta instances are a convenient way of representing
 durations
2. datetime.timedelta instances cannot be conveniently used in many
 calculations e.g. calculating distance based on velocity and time
3. datetime.timedelta instances cannot be conveniently used in many
 library functions e.g. time.sleep(), urllib2.urlopen(timeout=)
I propose to fix that by adding a timedelta.total_seconds attribute that
equals:
timedelta.days * 3600 * 24 + timedelta.seconds + timedelta.microseconds
/ 100000.0

The addition looks quite legitimate to me.
The only thing is that it may be better as a method (total_seconds())
rather than an attribute, given the other APIs in the datetime module.
Also, the patch lacks some unit tests.

Sorry for the last comment about unit tests, they are here actually :-)

Attached is a patch that implements .total_seconds as an instance method

Given the timing, I fear this will have to wait for 3.2.

The patch is committed in r76529 (trunk) and r76530 (py3k). Thank you!

A late note: this would be redundant if the oft-requested division of 
timedeltas were implemented: t.total_seconds could then be spelt
t/timedelta(seconds=1)
with the advantage that there would then be a natural way to spell 
t.total_days or t.total_hours as well.

That should be t.total_seconds(), of course.

> A late note: this would be redundant if the oft-requested division of 
> timedeltas were implemented: t.total_seconds could then be spelt
> 
> t/timedelta(seconds=1)
It would be less obvious, though.

Sorry for commenting on a closed issue but I just bumped into a problem requiring a total_minute() method I ended up implementing by doing some raw math by hand.
Would it be a reasonable addition?
If so I'll open a separate issue.

What about
def total_minutes(td):
 return td / datetime.timedelta(minutes=1)
?

You'll probably get more traction if you file a new bug.