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

[David Mitchell]

James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 think we can easily use up larry's 75%/90% 'allowance' just breaking
stuff where we really have to, without breaking things for the sake of it too.

Give time() an optional arg, or rename it, or anything really,
but please make plain time() behave the same as before.

IMHO.   # s/H//;

Dave.