Message155632
| Author |
loewis |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, eric.araujo, gvanrossum, larry, loewis, maubp, ncoghlan, pitrou, python-dev, r.david.murray, rosslagerwall, shaurz, vstinner |
| Date |
2012年03月13日.16:44:00 |
| SpamBayes Score |
7.579696e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<4F5F794F.2030208@v.loewis.de> |
| In-reply-to |
<1331645214.24.0.106742603471.issue14127@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> I don't want to remove os.futimens() and os.utimensat() because they add a feature: UTIME_NOW and UTIME_OMIT flags.
I'm not sure how this could work: UTIME_NOW and UTIME_OMIT have
typically values such as ((1l << 30) - 2l) which could be mistaken
as a time stamp if there is a flat nanosecond value.
There would be ways to solve this, of course: not passing the
value should be considered as UTIME_OMIT, and passing -1 may
be treated as UTIME_NOW. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年03月13日 16:44:01 | loewis | set | recipients:
+ loewis, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, pitrou, vstinner, larry, eric.araujo, Arfrever, r.david.murray, maubp, shaurz, rosslagerwall, python-dev |
| 2012年03月13日 16:44:01 | loewis | link | issue14127 messages |
| 2012年03月13日 16:44:00 | loewis | create |
|