help-bash
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: was there a more fine number than $SECONDS for the same purpose


From: Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev
Subject: Re: was there a more fine number than $SECONDS for the same purpose
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 14:45:07 +0100

On Sun, Nov 7, 2021, 14:18 Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 01:26:47PM +0100, Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev wrote:
> > oh, i know about this one, .. guess no since-startup accurate value..
>
> You can store the value of EPOCHREALTIME in a different variable at the
> start of your script, and then retrieve it again later on, and subtract
> the two.  However, subtracting the two values will require forking an
> external program, because bash can't do it.  So, you'd want to keep it
> to a minimum.
>
i plan to do so by your post, i didnt realize earlier
plan to gawk
ill have to plan a coproc system for it

>
> If your goal is to display some sort of "stopwatch" that shows the
> passing of real time with sub-second accuracy, may I suggest that bash
> is not the best choice of language in which to do this?
>
its the only i know, along with gawk
besides rests of mac os 9 realbasic and such

>
> On a slight tangent, I'd like to point out that Daylight Saving Time
> ended this morning in the US.  So, once again, I got to run this little
> one-liner:
>
> while sleep .1s; do printf '\r%(%H:%M:%S)T'; done
>
i still havent managed my realtime prompt date so, but i got a slight idea

>
> I let that run while I set my wristwatch (which is the only device I own
> which shows time to the second).  Then I use the wristwatch to set all
> the other clocks in and around my house, which are all hour-and-minute
> devices (except for the one clock that's analog).
>
> Maybe that helps you in some way.  Maybe not.  We have no idea what you're
> trying to do, because you aren't telling us.
>
that you for sharing cool knows
i no special not even ps1 date thingy i just.. overall know ask, had it
specificly in-head ..

>
>


reply via email to

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