[Python-ideas] Why not picoseconds?

MRAB python at mrabarnett.plus.com
Sun Oct 15 14:15:53 EDT 2017

Previous message (by thread): [Python-ideas] Why not picoseconds?
Next message (by thread): [Python-ideas] Why not picoseconds?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 2017-10-15 19:02, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net 
> <mailto:solipsis at pitrou.net>>wrote:
> 
> 
>     Since new APIs are expensive and we'd like to be future-proof, why not
>     move to picoseconds?  That would be safe until clocks reach the THz
>     barrier, which is quite far away from us.
> 
> 
> I somewhat like the thought, but would everyone then end up thinking 
> about what power of 1000 they need to multiply with?
> 
A simple solution to that would be to provide the multiplier as a named 
constant.

[snip]

Previous message (by thread): [Python-ideas] Why not picoseconds?
Next message (by thread): [Python-ideas] Why not picoseconds?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list