On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 10:41:13AM -0800, Jordan Johnson wrote:
>
> Yes, so I’d feel a lot more comfortable if I can give a bigger max
> than 2^32 (which I expect I can, but want to check). I found that in
> Racket v6.1.1 the max is 2^31 - 1. In v6.1.1.8 all I’ve determined is
> that the max is
On Mar 2, 2015, at 6:59 AM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 04:07:57PM -0800, Jordan Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I expect a pretty conservative estimate is A-OK if it’d be sure of
>> not throwing an error on 32+-bit systems;
>> I see 2^32 seconds would get us at least to the year 2106...
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 04:07:57PM -0800, Jordan Johnson wrote:
>
> I expect a pretty conservative estimate is A-OK if it’d be sure of
> not throwing an error on 32+-bit systems;
> I see 2^32 seconds would get us at least to the year 2106...
Which is why the world is shifting to 64-bit dates.
If
Hi all,
Am I right in thinking the min and max dates that racket/date can handle are
platform-dependent? If so, is there any constant I can reasonably use as a
least or greatest representable date?
I’ve looked in racket/date.rkt and see that there’s some code that appears to
be doing binsearch
4 matches
Mail list logo
