The docstring for strftime is:
def strftime(self, fmt): "Format using strftime()."

And that of strptime:
````def strptime(cls, date_string, format):
'string, format -> new datetime parsed from a string (like time.strptime()).'
````

I feel like both could use a better explanation for users who will access them using >>> help(datetime.strftime) and users using IDEs that provide doc-strings on-hover over a function.

I agree, this can be improved (particularly the first one). I believe we'll need to change it in the C implementation as well as the pure python version.

That said, the most useful thing for users would be a full formatting reference, which is too much to put in the docstring (and to maintain in at least 3 different places). I'm not sure how much better it can get, but at least the first one reads like a terrible self-referential dictionary entry "recyclist (n). a proponent of recyclism". At the very least it should disambiguate between datetime.strftime, time.strftime and stftime(3).

Thanks for the review @p-ganssle.
I'll request that you assign it to me, counting on your guidance while changing it in the C implementation.

Hi, An enquiry here:
On the web documentation of strftime (https://docs.python.org/3/library/datetime.html?highlight=strftime#datetime.time.strftime),

What does this mean?
"Format codes referring to hours, minutes or seconds will see 0 values."

Oh! I realized that statement is there because the strftime method used is inherited from the date class.

Update: I opened a PR for this.