Re: Exposing subsecond precision in current-seconds

[felix . winkelmann]

> 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.


felix