Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 28844 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2002 02:24:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 28825 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2002 02:24:20 -0000 Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:24:29 -0700 From: Aaron Bannert To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Why not POSIX time_t? Message-ID: <20020715022429.GL18710@clove.org> Mail-Followup-To: Aaron Bannert , dev@apr.apache.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Can someone remind me what the reasons are that we don't use a struct with separate elements for seconds and microseconds, ala time_t? -aaron