Faré scripsit: > If we can't agree on what fraction that shall be, because of portability > issues, why not introduce an implementation-dependent unit "jiffies" or > some such, and an implementation-dependent constant conversion rate > jiffies-per-second, which could be an integer, fraction, real number, > but hopefully not a complex number, and if possible exact. This would > allow embedded implementation of Scheme to use whatever the hardware > or OS clock provides them without further expensive conversion during > time-sensitive operations.
I'm in favor of such an API, but it's out of scope for my current needs. > My modest proposal, for a Scheme implementation faithful to the spirit > of Scheme, of doing "The Right Thing" at the expense of respect for > convention, would be for a jiffy to be the Planck Unit of time: Modest indeed. The size of the bignums will not be so modest. Let's stick with nanoseconds if we must prescribe a size, or leave it implementation-defined, better yet. -- Do I contradict myself? John Cowan Very well then, I contradict myself. [email protected] I am large, I contain multitudes. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
