On 2004-10-14 at 19:46+0200 Peter Simons wrote:
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk writes:
this disappears when we just use floating-point seconds.
I agree that this is the superior approach. But at the same time I am not comfortable with hiding the actual resolution of the timer behind a Double. I believe this is something a wrapper for 'timeout' should do, not 'timeout' itself.
I haven't been following this discussion closely, but if the resolution of the timer were nanoseconds, wouldn't you run into trouble with Double for periods longer than about four months? 2**53==2**53+1 in Double on this machine. 2**53 is approx 9e15, but a year is only a little over 3e16ns. Integer is the answer. Incidentally, "Childs" is simply a surname. -- Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk