[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Exposing subsecond precision in current-seconds

From: felix . winkelmann
Subject: Re: Exposing subsecond precision in current-seconds
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:40:06 +0200

> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 06:21:12PM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:36:10PM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> > > > Microseconds since epoch? Are you sure about this?
> > >
> > > What else would the new current-microseconds return?
> >
> > Since startup, or since some undefined point of time. I see no sense in 
> > using
> > an absolute basetime, as such a timing command will in nearly all use cases
> > be used for relative timing.
> At work I deal a lot with timestamps, and while mostly you don't need
> sub-second precision, when you do, it's nice to be able to represent a
> timestamp with millisecond-precision using the standard method of time
> representation, and be able to use the standard procedures for
> calculations and conversions back and forth.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. But it seems to me that you
might need a more abstract representation in those cases that you are
talking of (which are not as frequent, as you say).
Let's get back to subsecond primitives for the core runtime.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]