Message124225
| Author |
vivanov |
| Recipients |
Alexander.Belopolsky, Neil Muller, amaury.forgeotdarc, andersjm, belopolsky, catlee, davidfraser, erik.stephens, guettli, hodgestar, jribbens, mark.dickinson, pitrou, r.david.murray, steve.roberts, tebeka, tim.peters, tomster, vivanov, vstinner, werneck |
| Date |
2010年12月17日.16:19:55 |
| SpamBayes Score |
2.8172535e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1292602796.92.0.849219759588.issue2736@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> on the other hand, given Victor's research, I don't see float seconds since an epoch appearing anywhere as a standard. Where do you see this being used as a standard?
Yes, I didn't mean standard as in RFCed and recommended and dominant, sorry if it sounded that way. I meant just that it is quite common in many places, big and small.
> I also don't understand your complaint about the fact that the one-liner creates a timetuple. datetime stores the date and time information as discrete fields, so generating a timetuple is a natural conversion path.
Well, the timetuple is not a tuple, but an object filled with attributes. It contains a few more than are required for this conversion and it doesn't contain one that is required. Therefore I really see that as an inelegant and ineffective way to do the conversion. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2010年12月17日 16:19:57 | vivanov | set | recipients:
+ vivanov, tim.peters, jribbens, guettli, amaury.forgeotdarc, tebeka, mark.dickinson, davidfraser, belopolsky, pitrou, andersjm, catlee, vstinner, tomster, werneck, hodgestar, Neil Muller, erik.stephens, steve.roberts, r.david.murray, Alexander.Belopolsky |
| 2010年12月17日 16:19:56 | vivanov | set | messageid: <1292602796.92.0.849219759588.issue2736@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年12月17日 16:19:55 | vivanov | link | issue2736 messages |
| 2010年12月17日 16:19:55 | vivanov | create |
|