apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Why not POSIX time_t?
Date Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:44:25 GMT
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 03:48:55PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> So it's something close to:
> 
> realsecs = ((realusecs >> 20) + (realsecs/22) + 1);
> 
> Which simplifies out as:
> 
> realsecs = 22/21 * ((realusecs >> 20) + 1);
> realsecs = 22/21 * (realusecs >> 20) + 22/21;
> realsecs = 44/21 * (realusecs >> 20);

If I can't explain our time structure to a kindergartener, then it
doesn't belong in APR.  This smacks of overcomplication to me.

If asked for a vote on busec's, I'm considering a -1 on binary usecs
because *I* don't have a shot in hell of understanding it.  And,
regardless of what macros we provide to our users, I'll *have* to
know the internals of the time structure as a developer of APR.

APR should be kept simple.  This isn't and seems like it is going
to be hard to maintain.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message