Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 37534 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2002 02:34:55 -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 37520 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2002 02:34:55 -0000 Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:35:05 -0700 From: Aaron Bannert To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: Why not POSIX time_t? Message-ID: <20020715023505.GM18710@clove.org> Mail-Followup-To: Aaron Bannert , dev@apr.apache.org References: <20020715022429.GL18710@clove.org> <3D3232F8.3020508@apache.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D3232F8.3020508@apache.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 07:27:04PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote: > You're thinking of timeval; time_t is just a long int containing > seconds since the start of the epoch. Yes, thanks. :) > The reason we don't use a struct (timeval or any variant thereof) > is that doing addition and subtraction on the struct is much slower, > more complicated, and (if people try to do their own match on the > struct directly) more error-prone than doing the same ops on a > scalar. How exactly is the subtraction slower?I'm not at all sure what you mean by people matching on the struct directly... -aaron