On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:56:56PM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote: > 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.
I agree, but apparently Guido doesn't. > 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 All further reasons to add mx.DateTime to the core. Then you could distribute programs that depend on it, knowing your users don't have to install anything extra. Every dependency on a third-party package means some subset of users will reject your program. -- -Mike (Iron) Orr, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (if mail problems: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://iron.cx/ English * Esperanto * Russkiy * Deutsch * Espan~ol _______________________________________________________________ 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
