At 09:34 PM 8/5/00 +0000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote: >Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >At 10:55 AM 8/2/00 +0200, Gisle Aas wrote: > >>All functions that return time values (seconds since epoch) should use > >>floating point numbers to return as much precision as the platform > >>supports. All functions that take time values as arguments should > >>work for fractional seconds if the platform supports it. > > > >Floats have resolution issues that exacerbate sub-second resolution issues. > >As an engineer I would really like to know when you are going to >run out of precision in double - that is forty something bits of mantissa. >That is more precision than you have in the real world. It's not precision, it's resolution. What do you do if your timers return values in 1/10ths of a second? Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Sam Tregar
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Graham Barr
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Larry Wall
- Ops versus subs (Was: Re: RFC: Higher resolu... Johan Vromans
- Re: Ops versus subs (Was: Re: RFC: Highe... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Ops versus subs (Was: Re: RFC: ... Johan Vromans
- Re: Ops versus subs (Was: Re: R... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Gisle Aas
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time val... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time... David L. Nicol
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC: Higher resolution time values Gisle Aas