William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > >apr_time_t must be in seconds. If folks want APR to keep time in > >microseconds, then they had bloody well change the type name > >accordingly. > > apr_time_t must nothing :-) Let's discuss *should(s)* > > time_t is seconds. I love the idea of apr_time_usec_t and apr_time_sec_t > names rather that something as ambigous as apr_time_t (which is misleading, > I agree.) >
Agreed. But, IMO, it *is* documented that apr_time_t is microsecond resolution. If people make assumptions then, well, that's bad, but not really a showstopper as far as I'm concerned. Now the nastyness of 64bit mult/division when we (always) need second resolution is another. Sure would be nice if it was an exact power of 2 :) -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
