Tim Peters <[email protected]> added the comment:
Ezio, it was Guido's design decision, it was intentional, and it's been
documented from the start(*). So you can disagree with it, but you
won't get anywhere claiming it's "a bug": intentional, documented
behaviors are never "bugs". At best you can make a case for that
they're design errors.
But that won't fly either. It's no more inconsistent than that, e.g.,
most floating-point numbers in practice aren't usually displayed with an
exponent, but if an exponent is needed, one is added to the output:
>>> .25
0.25
>>> .25 * 10**100
2.5e+99
Overly literal readings don't help your case either. Yes, __str__ aims
at producing nice output, but it's pedantic to argue as if that is, or
should be, __str__'s /only/ goal. Python's design just isn't that
simple-minded ;-) If someone uses non-zero microseconds, presumably
they want to see them.
Utterly trivial mechanical parsing of str() output is a non-goal in Python.
Of course the failing test should be repaired, and that was a good
catch. But the chance of changing the language to make the test work
as-is is approximately 0%.
(*) The datetime docs already say:
"""
__str__( )
For a datetime instance d, str(d) is equivalent to d.isoformat(' ').
"""
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue7342>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
