Author belopolsky
Recipients SilentGhost, acucci, belopolsky, berker.peksag, cvrebert, elixir, ezio.melotti, gvanrossum, jerry.elmore, lemburg, martin.panter, matrixise, terry.reedy, tim.peters, vstinner
Date 2016-01-17.21:33:15
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
> I don't really think nanoseconds belong here.

What about milliseconds?  I'll leave it for Guido to make a call on nanoseconds.  My vote is +0.5.

> If they don't
> exist anywhere else in the module, why should they be suddenly 
> introduced here?

The timespec feature is modeled after GNU date --iso-8601[=timespec] option which does support nanoseconds.  It is fairly common to support nanoseconds these days and it does not cost much to implement.
Date User Action Args
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, lemburg, gvanrossum, tim.peters, terry.reedy, vstinner, ezio.melotti, cvrebert, SilentGhost, berker.peksag, martin.panter, matrixise, elixir, jerry.elmore, acucci
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskysetmessageid: <>
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskylinkissue19475 messages
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskycreate