Message108056
| Author |
belopolsky |
| Recipients |
amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, brett.cannon, brian.curtin, daniel.urban, lemburg, mark.dickinson, pitrou, r.david.murray, rhettinger, techtonik, vstinner |
| Date |
2010年06月17日.20:14:03 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.07557907 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1276805647.0.0.493291783319.issue7989@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I am attaching datetime-sandbox-pypy.diff, a plain diff between six-year-old sandbox and pypy versions. (Plain diff is cleaner than unified diff.)
You can see that the differences are trivial. I notice, however that original datetime implementation was returning subclass instances from operations on datetime subclass instances. Brett, this is off-topic hear, but I would appreciate your take on msg107410.
BTW, in order to preserve history, it may be a good idea to develop this in a branch off datetime sandbox and merge it back when ready. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2010年06月17日 20:14:07 | belopolsky | set | recipients:
+ belopolsky, lemburg, brett.cannon, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, techtonik, r.david.murray, brian.curtin, daniel.urban |
| 2010年06月17日 20:14:06 | belopolsky | set | messageid: <1276805647.0.0.493291783319.issue7989@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年06月17日 20:14:04 | belopolsky | link | issue7989 messages |
| 2010年06月17日 20:14:04 | belopolsky | create |
|