> Guido van Rossum writes: > > In that case, I take back everything I've said about Jim Fulton's > > requirements. I'm quite sure that in the past he said he needed a > > very lightweight date/time object, but from what you say it appears > > this need has disappeared. > > He wanted this for the catalog, and I suspect he still does. Both > size and performance (of comparisons) were important, not rendering > time. Is comparison the same what Tim mentioned as range searches? I guess a representation like current Zope timestamps or what time.time() returns is fine for that -- it is monononous even if not necessarily continuous. I guess a broken-out time tuple is much harder to compare. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4