On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:02:02 -0400, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 2011-06-23 14:50, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 6/23/11, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:27:34 -0400, Jimmy Cao <jcao...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Thread.sleep( 70_000_000 ); // 7 sec
>
> Gah!
>
> Here, let me fix that for you:
>
> Thread.sleep(dur!"seconds"(7));
>
> :)
>
> -Steve
I find it very odd that for seconds we use "seconds", but for
everything else we use "msec", "usec", "hnsecs" abbreviations.
Because it makes sense to use the full names up to seconds. After that,
they're too long, so they get abbreviated.
You could argue that mseconds is not much longer than seconds. It's still
an abbreviation.
You could also argue that seconds is too long, couldn't it be secs? One
thing that sucks about having inconsistent abbreviations, I have to look
them up, even when I know what I'm typing makes sense to a reader, it just
may not be what the function expects. For instance, before I sent this
message, I had to look it up to make sure it was valid.
But here's an idea -- milliseconds, msecs, and mseconds could all map to
the same template function.
hectonanoseconds, hm.. that's a long one :)
-Steve
