Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > Hope you don't mind ;-) ... > > Not at all, we're hoping to arrive at something usable and fun for all! > > > You should name the type timestamp if you want to imply dt + n > > == dt + n seconds. datetime + n is commonly understood as > > dt + n *days*. > > Hm, I hadn't thought of that. To me seconds are the only thing that > makes sense because that's what a Unix timestamp does, but I haven't > read or written a lot of commercial code using date/time data. > > Is this just an mxDateTime convention, or is it in wider use? (URLs > of docs of other languages / libraries would really help to convince > me!) I'm not sure how wide-spread this convention is, but the mxDateTime users pushed me to it, so there must be some general understanding in that direction out there ;-) In mxDateTime I use the following conventions: DateTime + n: add n days (each having 86400.0 seconds, so fractions are possible too) DateTimeDelta + n: add n seconds It is of course prevered to write: DateTime(...) + DateTimeDelta(...) or DateTime(...) + RelativeDateTime(...) since this is more exlicit. There are also a few constants to make this even easier: DateTime(...) + 10 * oneSecond - 20 * oneMinute -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Company & Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/
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