OK, I think this is fine then.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Alexander Belopolsky < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Guido van Rossum <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I had been wondering about that myself. But your implementation proposal > sounds kind of expensive, doesn't it? > > > It could be with a naive implementation that would simply fill additional > fields in the existing time.struct_time object, but we can also modify the > struct_time class to compute the additional attributes only when they are > requested. (I believe struct_time is currently implemented as > PyStructSequence, so we will probably need to subclass that somehow.) > > On the other hand, I would start with a naive implementation and worry > about the optimizations later. As far as I know, the POSIX layer on > Windows (which is the main platform that will be affected) is already very > slow, so the price of cross-platform portability may be within user > expectations in this case. > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Datetime-SIG mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/datetime-sig The PSF Code of Conduct applies to this mailing list: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
