On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:38:15AM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Peter J. Acklam wrote: > > > I searched the archives and read a whole lot of postings, but > > didn't find anything about what I wrote, so that's why I posted > > it. > > > > I wanted to join this project and contribute something, but first > > I wanted to understand the reason behind some of the design > > decisions made, hence my postings and questions. > > > > But never mind, I'll shut up. > > Please let's calm down. I think it's fair to say that yes, this stuff has > been discussed, and yes, the archives are now _really_ big so finding this > may be difficult. > > I hope you're still interested in participating. > > As to sub-second resolutions. Let's settle this simply right now. This > _will_ be supported at the core level. The fineness of resolution is yet > to be determined. And the implementation (floating point versus an > additional scalar parameter) is also undetermined.
I'd say the "core level" just needs floating point seconds. Very simple and 'almost free' in performance terms. For the very few who need more than precision than ~15 digits for seconds ought to be able to plug in an alternate base class. > But I really don't want to worry about that right now. Ooops, sorry :) Tim.
