Author gvanrossum
Recipients acucci, andrei.duma, belopolsky, berker.peksag, cvrebert, ezio.melotti, gvanrossum, jerry.elmore, lemburg, matrixise, r.david.murray, skip.montanaro, terry.reedy, tim.peters, vstinner
Date 2015-12-15.17:34:46
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1450200886.95.0.0559835219753.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I like the idea. I have one suggestion: can we add 'milliseconds' as an option too? And might a well add 'nanoseconds' too, for future-proofing. I suppose there isn't a real use case for 'hours' but it seems silly to  leave it out. I expect that 'minutes' will be the most popular option, since HH:MM is the precision that most people care about for meetings and stuff.
History
Date User Action Args
2015-12-15 17:34:47gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, lemburg, tim.peters, skip.montanaro, terry.reedy, belopolsky, vstinner, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, cvrebert, berker.peksag, matrixise, andrei.duma, jerry.elmore, acucci
2015-12-15 17:34:46gvanrossumsetmessageid: <1450200886.95.0.0559835219753.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-12-15 17:34:46gvanrossumlinkissue19475 messages
2015-12-15 17:34:46gvanrossumcreate