Oh! I see. Sorry for the confusion. I misunderstood what you're written. Robby
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > `date->seconds' did not change; it still returns an exact integer. > > At Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:57:57 -0600, Robby Findler wrote: > > 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