On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 22:49 -0500, Michael Glaesemann wrote: > Would it make more sense to have phrase it in the positive sense? > i.e., --enable-floating-point-datetimes? I guess that's a bit longer, > but it says what you're doing, rather than what you're *not* doing.
I think the primary reason people will want to use FP-based datetimes is because they can't use integer-based datetimes for compatibility reasons (e.g. no OS support for 64-bit integers, or they need to remain compatible with old applications). The situation is analogous to --without-spinlocks: we could call that --enable-slow-locking or something, but that would sound like we're enabling an additional feature. It would also mean there would be an implicit relationship between "--enable-integer-datetimes" and "--enable-fp-datetimes" (at most one can be true). IMHO it would be simpler to just keep a single boolean variable ("integer datetimes enabled or not"). -Neil ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend