[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: time values
From: |
Luc Teirlinck |
Subject: |
Re: time values |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:37:21 -0500 (CDT) |
>From my previous message:
By the way, your current code seems to assume that
`visited-file-modtime' is not 0. Are you sure of that? Of course,
you know that (nth 5 attr) is not (0 0), but still. My patch still
probably assumes that: can tramp-time-diff handle 0 as an argument?
Otherwise, it is easy to rewrite the patch to transform 0 into (0 0),
or maybe an integer N < 2**16 into (0 N), because, theoretically,
`visited-file-modtime' can return such integers. (Even though probably
not in practice). But maybe `tramp-time-diff' is the place to
actually do that.
I was confused there for a moment. If `visited-file-modtime' returns
0, `verify-visited-file-modtime' and hence
`tramp-handle-verify-visited-file-modtime' should return t.
Hence, it has to be handled specially by
`tramp-handle-verify-visited-file-modtime'.
So the only question is:
Are you sure that the value can not be 0 at that point?
Your current code assumes it is not.
There probably is no need to worry about positive return values <
2**16, as these are not going to occur in practice.
Sincerely,
Luc.
- time values, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/07/10
- Re: time values, Kai Grossjohann, 2004/07/11
- Re: time values, Andreas Schwab, 2004/07/11
- Re: time values, Alex Schroeder, 2004/07/11
- Re: time values, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/07/11
- Re: time values,
Luc Teirlinck <=
- Re: time values, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/07/11
- Re: time values, Richard Stallman, 2004/07/11
- Re: time values, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/07/12
- Re: time values, Richard Stallman, 2004/07/11