Re: Support for sub-second time in decoded time

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> Hm, OK.  But I don't see how that relates to adding a new sub-second
>> field to the output value from `decode-time'.  :-)
>
> I guess nothing, except to suggest to represent the resolution
> explicitly (i.e. to avoid the ambiguity of (34 ... 5603) which could
> be 34.5603 or 34.05603 ...).

Right.  That makes more sense than "the bit that would come after the
decimal point if this were floating point, which it isn't", which would
be rather awkward to work with indeed.  :-/

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no