Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >That would seem like good future proofing. Someday every computer will >have decentish subsecond timing. I hope to see it in my lifetime...
It isn't having the sub-second time in the computer it is the API to get at it... > >My guess is that eventually they'll decide to put a moratorium on >leap seconds, with the recommendation that the problem be revisited >just before 2100, on the assumption that we'll add all of a century's >leap seconds at once at the end of each century. That would let >civil time drift by at most a minute or two before being hauled >back to astronomical time. Given that most people live more than an minute or two from their civil-time meridian who will notice? (Says me about 8 minutes west of GMT.) > >I'd say what's missing are the error bars. I don't mind if the >timestamp comes back integral on machines that can't support subsecond >timing, but I darn well better *know* that I can't sleep(.25), or >strange things are gonna happen. But you can fake sleep() with select() or whatever.
