anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> added the comment: On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > >> I have to agree with the OP that the current state of the docs is not as >>clear as it could be. > > In some ways the state of the docs is reflective of the state of the > code. C/POSIX API on which time module design is based is not very > well suited to the age of smart phones and distributed VC systems. > The whole idea that there is a static "system timezone" is absurd when > a "system" is in your pocket or in the cloud. > > I agree that the docs can be improved, but I don't see patches that > would constitute an improvement. I've explained what I would see as > an improvement in my prior comments.
Absurd need to be eliminated, but every time I touch datetime issues I am confused by the complexity of additional information and incompatibility of low-level C API with user needs. We need datetime FAQ for a reference and a collection of user stories to see what it possible (with examples/recipes) and what is impossible (with proposals/PEP) in current state. If I was in charge - I'd mark all datetime issues as release blockers for Py3k, so that all who wanted Py3k released ASAP dedicate their time to this problem. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue7229> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com