I vote to copy Ruby's %N and leave %f alone. On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Skip Montanaro <skip.montan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:10 AM, matthieu bec <m...@gmto.org> wrote: > > Agreed with Antoine, strftime/strptime are somewhat different concerns. > > Doesn't mean thay cannot be fixed at the same time but it's a bit a > > separate. > > Which reminds me... Somewhere else (maybe elsewhere in this thread? maybe > on a bug tracker issue?) someone mentioned that Ruby uses %N for fractions > of a second (and %L specifically for milliseconds). Here's the bit from the > Ruby strftime doc: > > %L - Millisecond of the second (000..999) > %N - Fractional seconds digits, default is 9 digits (nanosecond) > %3N millisecond (3 digits) > %6N microsecond (6 digits) > %9N nanosecond (9 digits) > %12N picosecond (12 digits) > > There's no obvious reason I can see to reinvent this particular wheel, at > least the %N spoke. The only question might be whether to modify Python's > existing %f format to accept a precision (defaulting to 6), or add %N in a > manner similar (or identical) to Ruby's semantics. > > Skip > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org > >
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
