Author davidfraser
Recipients Neil Muller, andersjm, belopolsky, davidfraser, hodgestar, tebeka, vstinner, werneck
Date 2008-11-24.14:04:46
SpamBayes Score 7.6128e-06
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <667436787.107671227518475401.JavaMail.root@klofta.sjsoft.com>
In-reply-to <1226711729.86.0.312684878446.issue2736@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
----- "Alexander Belopolsky" <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> Alexander Belopolsky <belopolsky@users.sourceforge.net> added the
> comment:
> 
> I would like to voice my opposition the totimestamp method.
> 
> Representing time as a float is a really bad idea (originated at 
> Microsoft as I have heard).  In addition to the usual numeric problems
> when dealing with the floating point, the resolution of the floating 
> point timestamp varies from year to year making it impossible to 
> represent high resolution historical data.
> 
> In my opinion both time.time() returning float and 
> datetime.fromtimestamp() taking a float are both design mistakes and 
> adding totimestamp that produces a float will further promote a bad 
> practice.

The point for me is that having to interact with Microsoft systems that require times means that the conversions have to be done. Is it better to have everybody re-implement this, with their own bugs, or to have a standard implementation? I think it's clearly better to have it as a method on the object. Of course, we should put docs in describing the pitfalls of this approach...
History
Date User Action Args
2008-11-24 14:04:49davidfrasersetrecipients: + davidfraser, tebeka, belopolsky, andersjm, vstinner, werneck, hodgestar, Neil Muller
2008-11-24 14:04:48davidfraserlinkissue2736 messages
2008-11-24 14:04:46davidfrasercreate