Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 1847 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jun 2000 21:25:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 1811 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2000 21:25:26 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: koj.rkbloom.net: rbb owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:25:39 -0700 (PDT) From: rbb@covalent.net X-Sender: rbb@koj.rkbloom.net To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/time/unix time.c In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > > > shouldn't that be ap_interval_time_t? > > > > Probably, but I still don't see the need for the two types, so I > > constantly forget about the interval_time. I'll change it later. > > dunno if i can help: ap_time_t is an absolute time. semantically it > doesn't make sense to store a 5 millisecond interval in an absolute time > (because the value "5 ms" means "5 ms after the epoch"). abs time needs > 64-bits, and relative time needs only 32-bits ... I guess I see reasoning behind it, I just don't see the need. Since people seem to like it, I'm not complaining, I am just going to have to be reminded that we need to do this, because it isn't something I am likely to think of on my own. :-) Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------