> On 2018 Jun 4 , at 9:08 a, Giampaolo Rodola' <g.rod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> IMO datetimes are not common enough to deserve their own literals. It would
> make the language more complex and harder to learn for a relatively little
> benefit. This would probably make more sense as a third party lib:
>
> >>> import datetimeutils
> >>> datetimeutils.interpretstr("2.5h - 14min + 9300ms")
> datetime(...)
>
> Both the string and the possibility to specify function arguments would give
> you way more expressiveness than language literals.
>
Agreed. I'll add that interpretstr probably isn't necessary; the constructor
for timedelta already lets you write
>>> datetime.timedelta(hours=2.5, minutes=-14, milliseconds=9300)
datetime.timedelta(0, 8169, 300000)
Further, I'd argue that such involved timedelta instances are rarely
instantiated
explicitly, resulting instead from datetime arithmetic.
--
Clint
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
