On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:06:06 +0200, Peter Hansen wrote
(in article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
> Kalle Anke wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:01:18 +0200, Larry Bates wrote:
>>
>>> but I'm not sure it is "better". I guess it depends
>>> on what you want to do with them after parsing.
>>
>> Sorry, I should have been clearer. I want to parse the date and create a
>> 'date object' that is a part of larger object (I'm parsing a text file that
>> represents the larger object and the date is a part of it).
>>
>> So my question should probably be: is there a better way to parse the date
>> and generate the 'date object' than the two step
>>
>> w = strptime(d,'%Y-%m-%d')
>> datetime.date( w[0], w[1], w[2] )
>>
>> Since I'm new to many things in Python I'm trying to learn if there is a
>> "better" way of doing things.
>
> You're still not defining what "better" means to you, so who can say?
>
> Perhaps you think a single line would be "better"?
>
> datetime.date(*time.strptime(d, '%Y-%m-%d')[:3])
:-) It's not my day I think
Better (in this case) =
+ Being "pythonic"
+ Avoiding going through a second representation (the tuple)
if there is some way to create a date object directly.
jem
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
