Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM?

[Branden]

James Mastros wrote:
> Why can't we change the meaning of time() slightly without changing to a
> different function name?  Yes, it will silently break some existing code,
> but that's OK -- remember, 90% with traslation, 75% without.  being in
that
> middle 15% isn't a bad thing.

I share your thought. But I proposed a new name for people that think that
``this would confuse UNIX users, that relate Perl's time with UNIX C's
time''.
Having the same name and modifying the semantics is more appropriate, IMO.

- Branden