On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:24:14 +0200 Christian Heimes <li...@cheimes.de> wrote: > Am 25.07.2012 03:46, schrieb Guido van Rossum: > > First you will have to show how you'd have to code this *without* > > nanosecond precision in datetime and how tedious that is. (I expect > > that representing the timestamp as a long integer expressing a posix > > timestamp times a billion would be very reasonable.) > > I'd vote for two separate numbers, the first similar to JDN (Julian Day > Number [1]), the second for nanoseconds per day. 3600 * 1000000 fit > nicely into an unsigned 32bit int.
But 24 * 3600 * 1e9 doesn't. Perhaps I didn't understand your proposal. Regards Antoine. -- Software development and contracting: http://pro.pitrou.net _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
