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

[James Mastros]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:53:23AM -0200, Branden wrote:
> Because with a better built-in that handles fractions of second (if that's
> ever desired, and I guess it is), time() would be deprecated and could
> be easily reproduced as int(now()) or anything like it.
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.

       -=- James Mastros
-- 
"My country 'tis of thee, of y'all i'm rappin'!  Lan where my brothers
fought, land where our King was shot -- from every building top, let freedom
happen!"
        -=- Monique, Sinfest[.net]
AIM: theorbtwo       homepage: http://www.rtweb.net/theorb/