On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 06:40, Alex Martelli wrote: > +1 -- I never liked the idea that 'time tuples' lost fractions of a > second. On platforms where that's sensible and not too hard, > time.time() could also -- unobtrusively and backwards compatibly -- set > that same attribute. I wonder if, where the attribute's real value is > unknown, it should be None (a correct indication of "I dunno") or 0.0 > (maybe handier); instinctively, I would prefer None. None feels better. I've always thought it was kind of icky for datetimes to use microseconds=0 to decide whether to print the fractional second part or not for isoformat(), e.g.: >>> import datetime >>> now = datetime.datetime.now() >>> now.isoformat() '2005-01-14T06:44:18.013832' >>> now.replace(microsecond=0).isoformat() '2005-01-14T06:44:18' -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20050114/b1f9bc15/attachment.pgp
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4