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年07月02日.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年07月02日 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年07月02日 22:14:48 | belopolsky | link | issue7989 messages |
| 2010年07月02日 22:14:48 | belopolsky | create |
|