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

[nick]

Stephen P . Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>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)

snooze() is a better name ;-)

-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons