apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: apr_time_t --> apr_time_usec_t
Date Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:15:23 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
> >apr_time_t must be in seconds.  If folks want APR to keep time in
> >microseconds, then they had bloody well change the type name
> >accordingly.
> 
> apr_time_t must nothing :-)  Let's discuss *should(s)*
> 
> time_t is seconds.  I love the idea of apr_time_usec_t and apr_time_sec_t
> names rather that something as ambigous as apr_time_t (which is misleading,
> I agree.)
> 

Agreed. But, IMO, it *is* documented that apr_time_t is microsecond
resolution. If people make assumptions then, well, that's bad, but
not really a showstopper as far as I'm concerned.

Now the nastyness of 64bit mult/division when we (always) need second
resolution is another. Sure would be nice if it was an exact power of 2 :)
-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

Mime
View raw message