[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: proposed getitimer and setitimer functions

From: Dirk Herrmann
Subject: Re: proposed getitimer and setitimer functions
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:52:38 +0200 (MEST)

On 10 Jul 2001, Rob Browning wrote:

> Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:
> > Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > > What about collapsing the "secs" and "microsecs" value into one, with
> > > a unit of microseconds.  With bignums, we don't need to use long-hand
> > > for multi-word numbers.
> > 
> > So is there a "standard" way to check the range of the bignum and
> > break it up into two long ints.  Last time I tried this, I had to go
> > to some trouble on the scm side, but I think that may have been
> > because I was tring to accomodate older guiles and the bit shifting
> > ops were broken.
> For now, I'm going to commit the versions that explicitly require two
> longs (and so match the C call semantics exactly), but we can easily
> change them easily to take bignums as soon as we reach a consensus,
> presumably before the 1.6 release -- in fact, I'll add a TODO item.

For the long term, I'd suggest to use seconds as the base unit.  As has
been suggested before, using rational numbers or reals allows to specify
any fraction of the given time unit.  So why choose something else than
the SI standard, i. e. seconds?

Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]