On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:43:05 -0600 Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote: > > I think strftime / strptime support is a low-priority concern on this > > topic, and can probably be discussed independently of the core > > nanosecond support. > > Might be low-priority, but with %f support as a template, supporting > something to specify nanoseconds should be pretty trivial. The hardest > question will be to convince ourselves that we aren't choosing a > format code which some other strftime/strptime implementation is > already using. > > In addition, ISTR that one of the use cases was analysis of datetime > data generated by other applications which has nanosecond resolution. One of the use cases is to deal with OS-generated timestamps without losing information. As long as you don't need to represent or parse those timestamps, strptime / strftime don't come into the picture. Regards Antoine.
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