➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

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 2016-01-17.21:33:15
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
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, lemburg, gvanrossum, tim.peters, terry.reedy, vstinner, ezio.melotti, cvrebert, SilentGhost, berker.peksag, martin.panter, matrixise, elixir, jerry.elmore, acucci
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskysetmessageid: <1453066395.64.0.775404787693.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskylinkissue19475 messages
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskycreate