On Aug 6, 7:43 am, Hendrik van Rooyen wrote:
> I am curious as to what would require less than microsecond
> timing - about the only thing I can think of would be something
> involving measuring the speed of light, where nanoseconds
> or better would be nice.
You are right :-) I am trying to wri
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 14:50:04 kpal wrote:
> Hello Everybody,
>
> The standard datetime has 1 microsecond granularity. My application
> needs finer time resolution, preferably float seconds. Is there an
> alternative to the out-of-the-box datetime? Timezone support is not
> essential.
I am c
En Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:50:04 -0300, kpal
escribió:
The standard datetime has 1 microsecond granularity.
Note that this is the finest granularity a datetime object can store, NOT
the precision of datetime.now() by example.
My application
needs finer time resolution, preferably float seconds.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:50 PM, kpal wrote:
> Hello Everybody,
>
> The standard datetime has 1 microsecond granularity. My application
> needs finer time resolution, preferably float seconds. Is there an
> alternative to the out-of-the-box datetime? Timezone support is not
> essential.
This is
Hello Everybody,
The standard datetime has 1 microsecond granularity. My application
needs finer time resolution, preferably float seconds. Is there an
alternative to the out-of-the-box datetime? Timezone support is not
essential.
Thanks,
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
