Author belopolsky
Recipients belopolsky, ethan.furman, larry, mark.dickinson, r.david.murray, tbarbugli, trcarden, vivanov, vstinner
Date 2015-07-05.19:04:08
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1436123048.28.0.195723169486.issue23517@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I'll let others fight this battle.  In my view, introducing floating point timestamp method for datetime objects was a mistake.  See issue #2736.  

Specifically, I would like to invite Velko Ivanov to rethink his rant at msg124197.

If anyone followed his advise and started using timestamp method to JSON-serialize datetimes around 3.3, have undoubtedly being bitten by the present bug (but may not know it yet.)

For those who need robust code, I will continue recommending (dt - EPOCH)/timedelta(seconds=1) expression over the timestamp method and for JSON serialization (dt - EPOCH) // datetime.resolution to convert to integers and EPOCH + n * datetime.resolution to convert back.
History
Date User Action Args
2015-07-05 19:04:08belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, mark.dickinson, vstinner, larry, r.david.murray, ethan.furman, vivanov, tbarbugli, trcarden
2015-07-05 19:04:08belopolskysetmessageid: <1436123048.28.0.195723169486.issue23517@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-07-05 19:04:08belopolskylinkissue23517 messages
2015-07-05 19:04:08belopolskycreate