On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 11:44, Mike Orr wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 05:07:13AM -0700, Steve Freitas wrote: > > > I am pretty sure that the mxDateTime isn't "stock" in any of the python > > > versions. > > It's definitely not part of Python's standard library. Python has an > extremely high standard for what is allowed into the standard library, > to avoid clutter that looks good at the time but then gets depreciated > later. It has to be (1) obviously THE best solution, (2) something the > Python team is willing to take over maintenance of (except the new xml > package, which is maintained by a third party). Of course it's not > perfect. String, regex, ftplib and xmllib got into the standard library > even though much better alternatives were found later.
mxDateTime would belong in the standard library by this convention. In fact, it's part of the DB2.0 standard (optional, but database adapters are supposed to use mxDateTime if it available, not home-grown classes or things based on the time module). mxDateTime is, IMHO, the only reasonable way to deal with dates in Python -- other third-party classes don't offer significant benefits, and are not guaranteed to be maintained and updated. The time module just sucks horribly -- tuple data structures are crazy. I don't know if the author wishes to keep it separate, or what. It wouldn't make sense to distribute mxDateTime with Webware, as it is mostly written in C, and that makes it much more complicated to deal with. A couple Python modules are easy to add in (e.g., WebKit.Cookie), but so far Webware is C-clean. _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
