On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 11:05 +0200, Dirk Meyer wrote: > I strongly vote against this. Maybe add a start_sec() if you like, but > having secs and msecs in one function is very bad. Or add a second > parameter secs=False, so start(1000) == start(1, True)
Ok, I agree that it was wishywashy to begin with.
I suggest making that parameter seconds, then, and updating all the code
that uses it.
The truth is, seconds is simply much easier to read:
start(0.1) vs. start(100)
start(0.05) vs. start(50)
- ambiguity here, is 100 or 50 in seconds or milliseconds?
0.1 and 0.05 is clearly not specified in milliseconds, so
it must be seconds.
start(10) vs. start(10000)
- once we start getting too many zeros, as in the case of long
timers specified in milliseconds, it's harder to read.
Your opinion?
Jason.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
