Scheme language standardization process
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> I have no idea what the [ISO C] committee was thinking when they came
> up with POSIX time, but I can only assume they were under the influenceThey were under the influence of the maxim "Existing code matters,
> of some substance for which the idea of time passing at varying speeds
> seems natural.
existing implementations do not". They observed that the overwhelming
majority of existing applications code that made use of clock() assumed
that {leap years, non-leap years, days, hours, minutes} were exactly
{31622400s, 31536000s, 86400s, 3600s, 60s} long. Therefore, they defined
clock() to return a notion of time with the same assumptions.
These are the points that concerned me most. Note that I have added
> The ugly news is that if we standardize on TAI instead of POSIX time
> then many Schemes may simply be unable to implement the standard.
> You need a specialized library like NTP, or a hypothetical clock_gettime
> with a CLOCK_TAI clock id. [CLOCK_MONOTONIC is difficult to work with
> since the epoch is unknown, and is dangerous on SMP systems because
> the process can shift to a different core and get inconsistent results.]
minimal monotonic time to my WG1 proposal.
Please do continue to think about it.
> I need to think about this more, but at this point am inclined to drop
> any notion of time from WG1 and leave it to WG2.
--
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan@x
'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place,
The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace,
We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall,
So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale. --Greg Baker
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports