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

[Stephen P. Potter]

Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered
:
| I guess it's part of the can of sub-second worms: if we do sleep(),
| people will ask why don't we do time() and alarm(), too.  sleep() and
| alarm() we could get away with more easily, but changing time() to do
| subsecond granularity would be A Bad Thing for backward compatibility.

Why do we have to worry about changing time()?  There's a real parallel
between sleep() and alarm(), so we would want to do both if we did either,
but time() really has no relation to them.

Or, should we just implement usleep() and (for lack of a better name)
ualarm()?

-spp