Author belopolsky
Recipients SilentGhost, acucci, andrei.duma, belopolsky, berker.peksag, cvrebert, ezio.melotti, gvanrossum, haypo, jerry.elmore, lemburg, martin.panter, matrixise, terry.reedy, tim.peters
Date 2016-01-17.21:33:15
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1453066395.64.0.775404787693.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> 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.
History
Date User Action Args
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskysetrecipients: + belopolsky, lemburg, gvanrossum, tim.peters, terry.reedy, haypo, ezio.melotti, cvrebert, SilentGhost, berker.peksag, martin.panter, matrixise, andrei.duma, jerry.elmore, acucci
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskysetmessageid: <1453066395.64.0.775404787693.issue19475@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskylinkissue19475 messages
2016-01-17 21:33:15belopolskycreate