Thank you for putting into words my same initial concerns about this library.
Naming should be much clearer than this, with the intention to make code sort-of read like English text as much as possible. Arrow is a fine name[0], but the actual class/object names should be descriptive.
Also, not only the fact that .replace() can apply relative time-offsets, the quirky way it signifies it, using singular and plural keyword-parameters, it's a "clever" solution but it's not at all intuitive. When I figured it out, it was more of a relief that at least .replace() does not always apply relative time-offsets (which would have been terrible naming).
I wish it was more pythonic, on the whole, agreeing with the way people expect things to behave in Python modules. It says it's inspired by Requests, which gets that very much right, so I was getting my hopes up a little.
Arrow.get() is totally named the wrong thing. It does more like a .create(), maybe I would've put that functionality into the constructor. A method called .get() should implement something very similar to what most .get* methods do on standard types and in the standard library. Which is, extract part of an object that is a container-type (optionally with defaults, etc). Of course that operation does not make sense on an Arrow object (and please don't try), so it probably just shouldn't have a .get() method.
[0] actually it's not. I've found myself accidentally muscle-memory-typing "Array" a couple of times already. I'd probably have renamed this module early on in the process for that reason alone.
Naming should be much clearer than this, with the intention to make code sort-of read like English text as much as possible. Arrow is a fine name[0], but the actual class/object names should be descriptive.
Also, not only the fact that .replace() can apply relative time-offsets, the quirky way it signifies it, using singular and plural keyword-parameters, it's a "clever" solution but it's not at all intuitive. When I figured it out, it was more of a relief that at least .replace() does not always apply relative time-offsets (which would have been terrible naming).
I wish it was more pythonic, on the whole, agreeing with the way people expect things to behave in Python modules. It says it's inspired by Requests, which gets that very much right, so I was getting my hopes up a little.
Arrow.get() is totally named the wrong thing. It does more like a .create(), maybe I would've put that functionality into the constructor. A method called .get() should implement something very similar to what most .get* methods do on standard types and in the standard library. Which is, extract part of an object that is a container-type (optionally with defaults, etc). Of course that operation does not make sense on an Arrow object (and please don't try), so it probably just shouldn't have a .get() method.
[0] actually it's not. I've found myself accidentally muscle-memory-typing "Array" a couple of times already. I'd probably have renamed this module early on in the process for that reason alone.