Front page | perl.datetime |
Postings from January 2003
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Peter J. Acklam wrote: > pijll@gmx.net (Eugene Van Der Pijll) wrote: > > > Timestamps with a precision better than an attosecond are never > > needed, as far as I know. Physicists work with as, ys and zs, > > but only with time lengths or intervals, not with absolute time. > > That's probably true -- and the example I gave was, admittedly, > rather example -- but it was intended as a counter-example to the > statement someone made that attoseconds are never used in the real > world. That was not the statement. What I said was that *I* had never encountered a use for them in my experience. I hardly deny the existence of such uses. > Anyway, whatever base format is used, I hope that it has a large > enough range and resolution/granularity. If not, then people will > be more tempted to write even more (incompatible) time and date > modules. You seem to be assuming that it *won't*. It will. It does. This issue has been discussed to death. We want fine granularity. Fine. Nobody has suggested otherwise. -- Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com ... and another brother out of his mind, and another brother out at New York (not the same, though it might appear so) Somebody's Luggage (Charles Dickens)Thread Previous | Thread Next