Message258483
| Author |
belopolsky |
| Recipients |
SilentGhost, acucci, belopolsky, berker.peksag, cvrebert, elixir, ezio.melotti, gvanrossum, jerry.elmore, lemburg, martin.panter, matrixise, terry.reedy, tim.peters, vstinner |
| Date |
2016年01月17日.21:33:15 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1453066395.64.0.775404787693.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> I don't really think nanoseconds belong here.
What about milliseconds? I'll leave it for Guido to make a call on nanoseconds. My vote is +0.5.
> If they don't
> exist anywhere else in the module, why should they be suddenly
> introduced here?
The timespec feature is modeled after GNU date --iso-8601[=timespec] option which does support nanoseconds. It is fairly common to support nanoseconds these days and it does not cost much to implement. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2016年01月17日 21:33:15 | belopolsky | set | recipients:
+ belopolsky, lemburg, gvanrossum, tim.peters, terry.reedy, vstinner, ezio.melotti, cvrebert, SilentGhost, berker.peksag, martin.panter, matrixise, elixir, jerry.elmore, acucci |
| 2016年01月17日 21:33:15 | belopolsky | set | messageid: <1453066395.64.0.775404787693.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016年01月17日 21:33:15 | belopolsky | link | issue19475 messages |
| 2016年01月17日 21:33:15 | belopolsky | create |
|