On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Rick Measham wrote: > At 4:36 PM -0500 11/6/03, Dave Rolsky wrote: > >No, if anything, we'll can the fractional_second constructor parameter. > >Nanoseconds are here to stay, because I don't want to add "bigfloat" to > >the mix, and I want us to be accurate. > > > Dave, can you explain to me again why we need nanosecond (an > arbitraty fraction) rather than just using fractional seconds? (not > floating, fractional) What we're talking about *is* fractional > seconds, why not just call it that? There's no imprecision that > doesn't already exist in your computer. If your computer can only > handle floats down to 6 decimal places, then you're screwed with any > other math anyway! Even if it handles it way down to 100 places, as > soon as you ask for 'half the googliseconds' you loose precision.
Now you're confusing me! "Fractional" by itself doesn't mean anything, does it? You can't just the numerator without the denominator. In our case, the denominator is 1,000,000,000 and the numerator is the the value of the "nanosecond" parameter. -dave /*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/
