On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Doug MacEachern wrote:
> On 2 Sep 2000, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 15:46:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug MacEachern
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > perhaps, i've cc'd andreas who originally chose -M, i have the feeling we
> > > discussed the reasons ages ago. andreas, do you see any reason not to use
> > > (stat _)[9] instead of -M _ ?
> >
> > I'm falling aslep while I write, so please forgive me if I say
> > something stupid...
> > You cannot change between -M _ and (stat _)[9] without inverting the
> > comparison function too. If you watch a file's mtime within a perl
> > program, -M _ will get smaller (and below zero) while (stat _)[9] will
> > get bigger. So if you check for <= now, this would become >=
> >
> > Otherwise I see no strong reason to use one or the other. I kind of
> > like -M here because it's shorter to read/write and it's a smaller
> > number and easier to compare visually. But, of course, it's risky if
> > somebody plays with $^T, then they can break -M by action at a
> > distance while they cannot break the stat thing.
The only thing I can think of in favour of -M is that its fractional, so
people don't have to wait a whole second for their updates :-)
Although it could be based on seconds too, and just divided by 86_400 for
all I know...
--
<Matt/>
Fastnet Software Ltd. High Performance Web Specialists
Providing mod_perl, XML, Sybase and Oracle solutions
Email for training and consultancy availability.
http://sergeant.org | AxKit: http://axkit.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
