At 07:52 PM 02/23/2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>From: "Greg Marr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Especially since they have to divide it by 1,000,000, not 100,000.
>
>True, that's why there is a macro for the ms value, I believe, and
>their should be if there isn't. Experience shows that folks having
>to type the same digit more than twice (or dial on the telephone)
>get it wrong more times than not.
Yes, but how do you force people to use the macro if apr_time_t is
just a numeric type?
>Perhaps there is only one answer to the slop (and we will have slop
>if we use seconds or microseconds, take your pick) is to hide this
>in a structure and force folks to use inlined/macroized (based on
>platform) implementations of the arithmetic, to assure they don't do
>something foolish.
That was Roy's suggestion.
>I entirely disagree. That has nothing to do with the definition of
>time. If you would like to restate this entire argument on the
>computational benefits of seconds, do so.
That was the original argument for the change.
--
Greg Marr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We thought you were dead."
"I was, but I'm better now." - Sheridan, "The Summoning"
