On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 5:53:58 PM EDT Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> No, but the last time I suggested that that datetime types should
> satisfy the same invariants as numbers, namely
> T(repr(x)) == x, the idea was met will silence. I, on the other hand,
> am not very enthusiastic about name
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Hasan Diwan wrote:
>>
> can anyone argue that it's not a good idea for datetime ot
> be able to read the iso format it puts out?
No, but the last time I suggested that that datetime types should
satisfy the s
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Hasan Diwan wrote:
> If one simply replaces the 'T' with a space and trims it after the '.',
> IIRC, it parses fine.
>
sure, but really, can anyone argue that it's not a good idea for datetime
ot be able to read the iso format it puts out???
-CHB
> -- H
>
> O
Warning: the PEP 564 doesn't make any assumption about clock
synchronizations. My intent is only to expose what the operating
system provides without losing precision. That's all :-)
2017-10-24 13:25 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou :
> NTP is layered over UDP. The article shows base case UDP latencies o
Le 24/10/2017 à 13:20, Victor Stinner a écrit :
>> See https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-to-achieve-low-latency/
>
> This article doesn't mention NTP, synchronization or nanoseconds.
NTP is layered over UDP. The article shows base case UDP latencies of
around 15µs over 10Gbps Ethernet.
Regards
2017-10-24 11:22 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou :
> What does synchronization have to do with it? If synchronization
> matters, then your PEP should be rejected, because current computers
> using NTP can't synchronize with a better precision than 230 ns.
Currently, the PEP 564 is mostly designed for ha
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017, Antoine Pitrou > wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:00:45 +0200
> Victor Stinner wrote:
> > By the way, you mentionned that clocks are not synchronized. That's
> another
> > revelant point. Even if system clocks are synchronized on a single
> > computer, I read that you
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:00:45 +0200
Victor Stinner wrote:
> By the way, you mentionned that clocks are not synchronized. That's another
> revelant point. Even if system clocks are synchronized on a single
> computer, I read that you cannot reach nanosecond resolution for a NTP
> synchronization eve
Thanks Thomas, it was interesting! You confirmed that time.time_ns() and
other system clocks exposed by Python are inappropriate for sub-nanosecond
physical experiment.
By the way, you mentionned that clocks are not synchronized. That's another
revelant point. Even if system clocks are synchronize
