Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM?

[Jarkko Hietaniemi]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:47:59AM -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:53:23AM -0200, Branden wrote:
> > Because with a better built-in that handles fractions of second (if that's
> > ever desired, and I guess it is), time() would be deprecated and could
> > be easily reproduced as int(now()) or anything like it.
>
> Why can't we change the meaning of time() slightly without changing to a
> different function name?  Yes, it will silently break some existing code,
> but that's OK -- remember, 90% with traslation, 75% without.  being in that
> middle 15% isn't a bad thing.

So nice of you to volunteer for being our help desk person man for
explaining to people why their time() just got broken :-)

-- 
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
        # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
        # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen