Author gvanrossum
Recipients ezio.melotti, gvanrossum, r.david.murray, skip.montanaro, tim.peters
Date 2013-11-01.18:40:37
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1383331237.96.0.659959471946.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Well, I don't know if this sways anything, but I was probably responsible, and I think my argument was something about not all timestamp sources having microseconds, and not wanting to emit the ".000000" in that case. If I could go back I'd probably do something else; after all str(1.0) doesn't return '1' either. But that's water under the bridge; "fixing" this is undoubtedly going to break a lot of code.

Maybe we can give isoformat() a flag parameter to force the inclusion or exclusion of the microseconds (with a default of None meaning the current behavior)?
History
Date User Action Args
2013-11-01 18:40:38gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, tim.peters, skip.montanaro, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray
2013-11-01 18:40:37gvanrossumsetmessageid: <1383331237.96.0.659959471946.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-11-01 18:40:37gvanrossumlinkissue19475 messages
2013-11-01 18:40:37gvanrossumcreate