Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we are going to use this, I'd like to see us standardize on the
> highest-precision (i.e. attosecond) version. While it's not necessary
> in any application that I can currently think of and will probably never
> be necessary in 90% of Perl applications, when you need it, you need it,
> and if the core language doesn't support it, it can be a pain to get it.
> Well, actually...I suppose if there are huge penalties for using the
> attosecond version, maybe it wouldn't be worth it, but it doesn't sound
> from this post like that is the case.
There shouldn't be. The only potential problem with the attosecond
version (which really isn't much of a problem) is that it will have
varying levels of precision on different platforms, but that's generally
true of system time anyway.
libtai will probably need some portability munging if we go that route
(which I like as a basic idea; djb writes pretty solid code and his
library interface seems fundamentally sound); right now, I believe it
fails to compile on systems without a precision timer interface, mostly
for the TAI64NA support.
There may be systems where we can't get anything more precise than seconds
out of the system clock.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
