Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: Sorry for being late to the discussion, but please allow me to add a -1 vote. The time.struct_time precedent is indeed comically verbose. Whenever I need to inspect a struct_time, I cast it to a plain tuple
Compare >>> time.gmtime(1121871596) time.struct_time(tm_year=2005, tm_mon=7, tm_mday=20, tm_hour=14, tm_min=59, tm_sec=56, tm_wday=2, tm_yday=201, tm_isdst=0) and >>> time.gmtime(1121871596)[:] (2005, 7, 20, 14, 59, 56, 2, 201, 0) Unless you need to know what the last three fields are, the long form gives no advantage. datetime.timedelta(days=3114, seconds=28747, microseconds=100000) is not as verbose and the extra information may be helpful the first time you see it, but if you deal with timedeltas a lot, it would quickly become annoying. Moreover, unlike in the struct_time case, there will be no easy way to suppress metadata. Furthermore, "seconds=28747" is not that user-friendly. A friendlier representation would be "hours=7, minutes=59, seconds=7" and similar information is displayed when you print a timedelta: >>> datetime.timedelta(days=3114, seconds=28747, microseconds=100000) datetime.timedelta(3114, 28747, 100000) >>> print(_) 3114 days, 7:59:07.100000 ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue30302> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
