"Perry E. Metzger" <pe...@piermont.com> writes: > Alistair Crooks <a...@pkgsrc.org> writes: >> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 06:47:37PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: >>> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote: >>>> You're right, if you believe that the failure of a runtime check for >>>> the length of time_t being greater than or equal to 4 bytes is [...] > Often, when one is writing code like this, one assumes something like > the idea that time_t is always, say, four bytes. Then, later, someone > like Christos comes along and turns the value into an eight byte [...]
The check, it is alleged above, was for >=4 bytes, not ==4. It seems unlikely that time_t will ever be made smaller than it is now. -- (let ((C call-with-current-continuation)) (apply (lambda (x y) (x y)) (map ((lambda (r) ((C C) (lambda (s) (r (lambda l (apply (s s) l)))))) (lambda (f) (lambda (l) (if (null? l) C (lambda (k) (display (car l)) ((f (cdr l)) (C k))))))) '((#\J #\d #\D #\v #\s) (#\e #\space #\a #\i #\newline)))))
