Message232920
I'm fine my patch doesn't resolve the "nanosecond support", but that doesn't mean the issue is closed per say.
Ref. to PEP410 rejection and de facto standard seems a bit expeditive.
assuming it worked, this would somewhat be more agreeable ?
>class timestamp(int): pass
> """measure of time expressed as a number of nanoseconds""" |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2014-12-19 00:40:59 | mdcb808@gmail.com | set | recipients:
+ mdcb808@gmail.com, lemburg, belopolsky, vstinner, Arfrever, ethan.furman |
2014-12-19 00:40:59 | mdcb808@gmail.com | set | messageid: <1418949659.65.0.205046989771.issue23084@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2014-12-19 00:40:59 | mdcb808@gmail.com | link | issue23084 messages |
2014-12-19 00:40:59 | mdcb808@gmail.com | create | |
|