Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was trying to minimize the extent of this already too long thread, > assuming you could go do the reading I referred you to if you were > really interested in the answer.
There's nothing to be gained by being patronising. > I still encourage you to read the reference, but for your sake, > here's a brief example of temporal logic that would break:: > > We know that: > date(2006, 1, 1) *Includes* datetime(2006, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1) Oh dear. You've fallen at the first hurdle. We do not know that. You are assuming the answer you want and then using it as an axiom. Your justification for this assumption was the whole point of my question, but you have again failed to answer. I don't know how much clearer I can make this, given that I have explicitly mentioned it several times already. > Hope that helps, No, it doesn't. Seriously, please try and understand this. I get that you wish Python datetime was the ultra-complete temporal logic module you want it to be. Good for you. I sympathise. If it was, I would agree with you. But it isn't. It's a simple module for dealing with calendar dates and times, not intervals in time. It makes pragmatic assumptions about what people mean when they use date arithmetic. They might not be the assumptions you want, but then it's probably not the module you want. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
