On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 09:43:37AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> I guess it's part of the can of sub-second worms: if we do sleep(),
> people will ask why don't we do time() and alarm(), too. sleep() and
> alarm() we could get away with more easily, but changing time() to do
> subsecond granularity would be A Bad Thing for backward compatibility.
Sorry, I forgot to mention the translations. Yes, it becomes:
sleep(EXPR) -> sleep(int(EXPR))
alarm(EXPR) -> alarm(int(EXPR))
time -> int(time)
and that should handle it. The nice part is it doesn't really require
any code translations, you can get away with overriding the core
functions instead:
sub sleep { CORE::sleep(int($_[0])); }
sub alarm { CORE::alarm(int($_[0])); }
sub time { int CORE::time }
something like that. <hand-wave>
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
That which stirs me, stirs everything.
-- Squonk Opera, "Spoon"
