On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 03:48:55PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > So it's something close to: > > realsecs = ((realusecs >> 20) + (realsecs/22) + 1); > > Which simplifies out as: > > realsecs = 22/21 * ((realusecs >> 20) + 1); > realsecs = 22/21 * (realusecs >> 20) + 22/21; > realsecs = 44/21 * (realusecs >> 20);
If I can't explain our time structure to a kindergartener, then it doesn't belong in APR. This smacks of overcomplication to me. If asked for a vote on busec's, I'm considering a -1 on binary usecs because *I* don't have a shot in hell of understanding it. And, regardless of what macros we provide to our users, I'll *have* to know the internals of the time structure as a developer of APR. APR should be kept simple. This isn't and seems like it is going to be hard to maintain. -- justin
