Author gvanrossum
Recipients acucci, andrei.duma, belopolsky, berker.peksag, cvrebert, ezio.melotti, gvanrossum, haypo, jerry.elmore, lemburg, matrixise, r.david.murray, skip.montanaro, terry.reedy, tim.peters
Date 2015-12-15.20:11:19
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAP7+vJ+DS-XS8UvEXuK-rsFUnmgaPMew8VOU6yqdaw64MwQfAA@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1450209688.79.0.712401437106.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Actually, nanosecond = dt.microsecond*1000.

I don't think we need 'none' -- you should just extract the date component
and call its isoformat() method if that's what you want.

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <
report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>
> Alexander Belopolsky added the comment:
>
> > The problem here is that millisecond and nanosecond seems not to be
> attributes of the datetime object.
>
> millisecond = dt.microsecond // 1000
>
> nanosecond = 0  # until we add it to datetime.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue19475>
> _______________________________________
>
History
Date User Action Args
2015-12-15 20:11:20gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, lemburg, tim.peters, skip.montanaro, terry.reedy, belopolsky, haypo, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, cvrebert, berker.peksag, matrixise, andrei.duma, jerry.elmore, acucci
2015-12-15 20:11:19gvanrossumlinkissue19475 messages
2015-12-15 20:11:19gvanrossumcreate