On 02/16/2012 02:14 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 16.02.2012 10:51, schrieb Victor Stinner:
>> 2012/2/16 "Martin v. Löwis"<martin at v.loewis.de>:
>>>> Maybe an alternative PEP could be written that supports the filesystem
>>>> copying use case only, using some specialized ns APIs? I really think
>>>> that all you need is st_{a,c,m}time_ns fields and os.utime_ns().
>>> I'm -1 on that, because it will make people write complicated code.
>> Python 3.3 *has already* APIs for nanosecond timestamps:
>> os.utimensat(), os.futimens(), signal.sigtimedwait(), etc. These
>> functions expect a (seconds: int, nanoseconds: int) tuple.
> I'm -1 on adding these APIs, also. Since Python 3.3 is not released
> yet, it's not too late to revert them.
+1. I also think they should be removed in favor of adding support for
a nanosecond-friendly representation to the existing APIs (os.utime,
etc). Python is not C, we don't need three functions that do the same
thing but take different representations as their arguments.
/arry
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