Faré scripsit:

> If we can't agree on what fraction that shall be, because of portability
> issues, why not introduce an implementation-dependent unit "jiffies" or
> some such, and an implementation-dependent constant conversion rate
> jiffies-per-second, which could be an integer, fraction, real number,
> but hopefully not a complex number, and if possible exact. This would
> allow embedded implementation of Scheme to use whatever the hardware
> or OS clock provides them without further expensive conversion during
> time-sensitive operations.

I'm in favor of such an API, but it's out of scope for my current needs.

> My modest proposal, for a Scheme implementation faithful to the spirit
> of Scheme, of doing "The Right Thing" at the expense of respect for
> convention, would be for a jiffy to be the Planck Unit of time:

Modest indeed.  The size of the bignums will not be so modest.
Let's stick with nanoseconds if we must prescribe a size, or leave it
implementation-defined, better yet.

--
Do I contradict myself?                         John Cowan
Very well then, I contradict myself.            cowan@ccil.org
I am large, I contain multitudes.               http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports