-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Steven M. Schweda wrote: > From: Micah Cowan > >>> - tms = time_str (NULL); >>> + tms = datetime_str (NULL); > >> Does anyone think there's any general usefulness for this sort of >> thing? > > I don't care much, but it seems like a fairly harmless change with > some benefit. Of course, I use an OS where a directory listing which > shows date and time does so using a consistent and constant format, > independent of the age of a file, so I may be biased.
:) Though honestly, what this change buys you above simply doing "date; wget", I don't know. I think maybe I won't bother, at least for now. >> Though if I were considering such a change, I'd probably just have wget >> mention the date at the start of its run, rather than repeat it for each >> transaction. Obviously wouldn't be a high-priority change... :) > > That sounds reasonable, except for a job which begins shortly before > midnight. I considered this, along with the unlikely >24-hour wget run. But, since any specific transaction is unlikely to take such a long time, the spread of the run is easily deduced by the start and end times, and, in the unlikely event of multiple days, counting time regressions. - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHAIP67M8hyUobTrERCFFIAJ9Pltuwqr0FeOtlwuFPotKxoBa6TgCeKb2l dtRfakFDQ47qcUJJFKXPVwY= =t50d -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
