On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Peter J. Acklam wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eugene Van Der Pijll) wrote:
>
> > Timestamps with a precision better than an attosecond are never
> > needed, as far as I know. Physicists work with as, ys and zs,
> > but only with time lengths or intervals, not with absolute time.
>
> That's probably true -- and the example I gave was, admittedly,
> rather example -- but it was intended as a counter-example to the
> statement someone made that attoseconds are never used in the real
> world.
That was not the statement. What I said was that *I* had never
encountered a use for them in my experience. I hardly deny the existence
of such uses.
> Anyway, whatever base format is used, I hope that it has a large
> enough range and resolution/granularity. If not, then people will
> be more tempted to write even more (incompatible) time and date
> modules.
You seem to be assuming that it *won't*. It will. It does. This issue
has been discussed to death. We want fine granularity. Fine. Nobody has
suggested otherwise.
--
Rich Bowen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... and another brother out of his mind, and another brother out at New
York (not the same, though it might appear so)
Somebody's Luggage (Charles Dickens)
