On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 13:31 +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote: > > I pushed my patch, mostly because its the simplest, and Lionel can > double-check it later at his leisure.
I agree. > > > (*) Both patches discard milliseconds. I *guess* this is > > the right thing to do, but would welcome others' > > opinions. Anyway, there is no more need for the TODO > > comment saying to ask this question. > > We're kind of stuck there without a lot of work because 100ths of a > second is as good as our existing timestamps support. Probably ok given > given http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263872 <aside> Heh. The microsoft page warns me "This article applies to a different operating system than the one you are using. Article content that may not be relevant to you is disabled." Take that, you lefties who care about cross-platform development! For comparison, I tried inserting a value with too much precision into a TIMESTAMP(4) field in PostgreSQL. The result was silent truncation, at least as far as I can see by selecting the field in psql. </aside> Actually, I was questioning the decision to truncate milliseconds rather than rounding to the nearest hundredth. It common (but not overwhelmingly common) to round values when a conversion loses precision, but truncation is consistent with the common treatment of times outside programming. I guess I just answered my question: when programming and the outside world bump into each other, the real world should win. Thanks, Terry. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice