<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/2/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Sanghyeon Seo</b> <<a href="mailto:sanxiyn@gmail.com">sanxiyn@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello,<br><br>Python library reference 6.11 says, "The epoch is the point where the<br>time starts. On January 1st of that year, at 0 hours, the "time since<br>the epoch'' is zero. For Unix, the epoch is 1970."
<br><br>To me this seems to suggest that the epoch may vary among platforms<br>and implementations as long as it's consistent. Am I correct?</blockquote><div><br>Yes. (I believe the C standard doesn't specify the 'epoch', just POSIX does -- for C. Regardless of that, Python's 'epoch' isn't guaranteed anywhere, and the docs you quote are probably the most authorative docs on the question.)
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">For example, does it make sense to file bug reports to Python projects<br>assuming that
time.time() returns seconds since the Unix epoch?</blockquote><div><br>I would say so, yes. <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I am asking because currently Python and IronPython returns very<br>different values for time.time() even if they run on the same computer<br>and at the same time.</blockquote><div><br>As long as the value returned by time.time
() is still 'seconds', and everything in the time and datetime modules properly considers the same epoch, I would say it's a bug (for third-party modules or for other parts of the standard library) to break.<br></div></div>
<br>-- <br>Thomas Wouters <<a href="mailto:thomas@python.org">thomas@python.org</a>><br><br>Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!