On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 01:07:18PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote: > > But the big problem is that there's a lot of stuff that's based off of > time() right now, like stat(), lstat(), etc, etc. When you think of the > cascading effects of changing Perl's timekeeping it gets really, really > sticky. I don't see this problem, unless you plan to write a filesystem in Perl. Surely Perl asks the OS for l?stat() instead of keeping track of it itself? Abigail
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Nicholas Clark
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Michael G Schwern
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Branden
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Branden
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Stephen P. Potter
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Damian Conway
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? abigail
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? David L. Nicol
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Nathan Wiger
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? abigail
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Stephen P. Potter
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? James Mastros
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? John Porter
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Bart Lateur
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Branden
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Bart Lateur
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Nicholas Clark
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Branden
- Re: Why shouldn't sleep(0.5) DWIM? Simon Cozens