https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6725
--- Comment #34 from Vladimir Panteleev <thecybersha...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Sobirari Muhomori from comment #32) > It's meaningful to sleep for 200ms, but not for 0.2s. When you need a better > precision, you switch to the appropriate unit. How would you specify 1/60 > fraction of a minute? I still don't understand this argument. 200ms and 0.2s are the same thing, how can it be meaningful to sleep for 200ms but not for 0.2s? > Digital signature is an important example. Cryptographic security is an > important technology enjoying wide use. So are thousands and thousands of other technologies being in use on your computer right now. Anyway, I don't see how this applies anyway, since this particular proposed change does not concern itself with timestamps, or calculations of durations - only conversion. > Millisecond exists precisely for that purpose. In my experience millisecond > precision works fine up to a scale of a minute (even though you don't need > milliseconds for durations >2s). Are you saying that the program should just accept an integer number at the lowest precision it needs? That's just wrong: 1) it puts abstract technical reasoning before user experience; and 2) it strays from a well-established convention. > It's again a need for a precision better than a second. Though, I'd still > question that 1.5s is much better than 1 or 2 seconds. I don't understand this argument. Are you saying that no program should ever need to sleep for 1.5 seconds? --
