Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 09:26 PM 6/26/2005 -0400, Bob Ippolito wrote: > >> On Jun 26, 2005, at 8:54 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote: >> >>> At 12:22 AM 6/27/2005 +0200, Dörwald Walter wrote: >>> >>>> Phillip J. Eby wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm also not keen on the fact that it makes certain things >>>>> properties whose value can change over time; i.e. ctime/mtime/ >>>>> atime >>>>> and >>>>> size really shouldn't be properties, but rather methods. >>>> >>>> I think ctime, mtime and atime should be (or return) >>>> datetime.datetime objects instead of integer timestamps. >>> >>> With what timezone? I don't think that can be done portably and >>> unambiguously, so I'm -1 on that. >> >> That makes no sense, timestamps aren't any better, > > Sure they are, if what you want is a timestamp. In any case, the > most common use case I've seen for mtime and friends is just > comparing against a previous value, or the value on another file, > so it doesn't actually matter most of the time what the type of the > value is.
I find timestamp values to be somewhat opaque. So all things being equal, I'd prefer datetime objects. >> and datetime >> objects have no time zone set by default anyway. >> datetime.fromtimestamp(time.time()) gives you the same thing as >> datetime.now(). >> > > In which case, it's also easy enough to get a datetime if you > really want one. I personally would rather do that than complicate > the use cases where a datetime isn't really needed. (i.e. most of > the time, at least in my experience) We should have one uniform way of representing time in Python. IMHO datetime objects are the natural choice. Bye, Walter Dörwald _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com