Author belopolsky
Recipients belopolsky, ethan.furman, mark.dickinson, r.david.murray, tbarbugli
Date 2015-02-25.15:33:08
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1424878389.2.0.760496936019.issue23517@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Victor's motivation for the change was (msg154811):

"""
I chose this rounding method because it is the method used by int(float) and int(time.time()) is a common in programs (more than round(time.time()). Rounding towards zero avoids also producing timestamps in the future.
"""

I recall the earlier discussions of rounding in the datetime module and Mark's explanation that rounding up is fine as long as ordering is preserved. i.e. for x < y round(x) <= round(y).

There are cases when producing times in the future are problematic, for example UNIX make really dislikes when file timestamps are in the future, but if this was the main motivation - rounding towards -infinity would be more appropriate.

In any case, as long as we have the following in the datetime module documentation, I think this behavior is a bug:

"""
On the POSIX compliant platforms, utcfromtimestamp(timestamp) is equivalent to the following expression:

datetime(1970, 1, 1) + timedelta(seconds=timestamp)
"""

>>> timestamp = 1424817268.274
>>> datetime.utcfromtimestamp(timestamp) == datetime(1970, 1, 1) + timedelta(seconds=timestamp)
False
History
Date User Action Args
2015-02-25 15:33:09belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, mark.dickinson, r.david.murray, ethan.furman, tbarbugli
2015-02-25 15:33:09belopolskysetmessageid: <1424878389.2.0.760496936019.issue23517@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-02-25 15:33:09belopolskylinkissue23517 messages
2015-02-25 15:33:08belopolskycreate