I think it’s a good idea. On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:43 AM Paul Ganssle <p...@ganssle.io> wrote:
> Greetings, > > Some time ago, I proposed adding a `.fromisocalendar` alternate > constructor to `datetime` (bpo-36004 <https://bugs.python.org/issue36004>), > with a corresponding implementation (PR #11888 > <https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/11888>). I advertised it on > datetime-SIG some time ago but haven't seen much discussion there, so I'd > like to bring it to python-dev's attention as we near the cut-off for new > Python 3.8 features. > > Other than the fact that I've needed this functionality in the past, I > also think a good general principle for the datetime module is that when a > class (time, date, datetime) has a "serialization" method (.strftime, > .timestamp, .isoformat, .isocalendar, etc), there should be a corresponding > *deserialization* method (.strptime, .fromtimestamp, .fromisoformat) that > constructs a datetime from the output. Now that `fromisoformat` was > introduced in Python 3.7, I think `isocalendar` is the only remaining > method without an inverse. Do people agree with this principle? Should we > add the `fromisocalendar` method? > > Thanks, > Paul > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido (mobile)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
