Marc Feeley scripsit: > Please don't count time using milliseconds. It clutters my brain to > have to remember a different unit of time than plain seconds.
And yet the SI unit of mass is the kilogram. But I'll think about that. > Moreover, the choice of milliseconds, rather than microseconds or > nanoseconds is purely an artifact of the current speed of computers. I think it's more about range vs. precision issues. > Integers shouldn't be used for measuring time points because > applications need different resolutions. That's a strong point for requiring floats, but ... > With a 64 bit float, you can represent a time interval of up to > 3 months with a nanosecond resolution, and up to 266 years with a > microsecond resolution. I don't see any practical reason for wanting > more than this. In the new all-64-bit world, 60-bit fixnums will have more range than 53-bit flonums, and they will not need to be boxed, which makes them faster to fling around. -- "Well, I'm back." --Sam John Cowan <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
