Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >At 10:55 AM 8/2/00 +0200, Gisle Aas wrote: >>All functions that return time values (seconds since epoch) should use >>floating point numbers to return as much precision as the platform >>supports. All functions that take time values as arguments should >>work for fractional seconds if the platform supports it. > >Floats have resolution issues that exacerbate sub-second resolution issues. As an engineer I would really like to know when you are going to run out of precision in double - that is forty something bits of mantissa. That is more precision than you have in the real world. -- Nick Ing-Simmons
- RFC: Higher resolution time values Gisle Aas
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Sam Tregar
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Graham Barr
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Larry Wall
- Ops versus subs (Was: Re: RFC: Higher re... Johan Vromans
- Re: Ops versus subs (Was: Re: RFC: ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Ops versus subs (Was: Re: R... Johan Vromans
- Re: Ops versus subs (Was: R... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Gisle Aas
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time val... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution ... David L. Nicol
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution ... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Gisle Aas