srfi 18: time->seconds does not round to nearest second, returns exact#1140
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Owner
|
Thanks! Unless there is precedent for using exact rationals, I think it's better to use inexact here for better compatibility. Chibi can also be compiled without rational support. |
fc8bd30 to
8cdb2d1
Compare
Author
|
Inexact does seem like the right thing, doesn't it. Patched, and this output looks sensible: |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The implementation of time->seconds rounds the representation of the
time?to the nearest second. The srfi seems pretty clear that this isn't the intended behavior:It also makes the srfi's interface unusable for timeouts <1s, which is goofy.
My change does the obvious thing. It uses an exact (rational) representation for microseconds, because I think that
(seconds->time (time->seconds T))should equalT. That said, using an inexact? to matchcurrent-secondfrom(scheme time)seems tasteful as well.