Does this mean that date->seconds always returns inexacts now? Or does it return inexacts only when it wouldn't be an integer?
(I'm not excited about either possibility but the second seems bad only if you consider TR.) Robby On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > At Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:23:04 -0500, Asumu Takikawa wrote: > > On 2013-01-30 23:20:45 +0100, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: > > > Any reason not to define current-date in this way? there's a > nanosecond > > > field there wanting to get into action. > > > > While we're on the subject, it's also weird that `date->seconds` has a > > contract accepting date? and so doesn't handle date*'s extra nanosecond > > field (note that `seconds->date` produces date*s): > > > > Welcome to Racket v5.3.2.3. > > -> (require racket/date) > > -> (define s (* #i1/1000 (current-inexact-milliseconds))) > > -> s > > 1359602380.5059009 > > -> (date->seconds (seconds->date s)) > > 1359602380 > > I've changed `current-date'. > > Some existing code may rely on `date->seconds' returning an exact > integer, so I've added `date*->seconds'. > > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
