Author martin.panter
Recipients SilentGhost, acucci, andrei.duma, belopolsky, berker.peksag, cvrebert, ezio.melotti, gvanrossum, jerry.elmore, lemburg, martin.panter, matrixise, r.david.murray, skip.montanaro, terry.reedy, tim.peters, vstinner
Date 2015-12-17.08:35:55
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1450341355.31.0.260458713723.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
If the timespec allowed any arbitrary number of digits after the decimal point, that would remove any argument about nanoseconds not being supported. It would also mean I could use this in one case where I currently format to two decimal places (my compromise between accurate timestamps and excessive information). Just a suggestion :)
History
Date User Action Args
2015-12-17 08:35:55martin.pantersetrecipients: + martin.panter, lemburg, gvanrossum, tim.peters, skip.montanaro, terry.reedy, belopolsky, vstinner, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, cvrebert, SilentGhost, berker.peksag, matrixise, andrei.duma, jerry.elmore, acucci
2015-12-17 08:35:55martin.pantersetmessageid: <1450341355.31.0.260458713723.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-12-17 08:35:55martin.panterlinkissue19475 messages
2015-12-17 08:35:55martin.pantercreate