From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8c3f76cf9b2829c4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-31 07:08:48 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Marin David Condic Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Duration vs. Ada.Real_Time Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:07:47 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: <3A782A43.680425AE@acm.org> References: <980495512.529981@edh3> <958ado$kuf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.bf.c6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 31 Jan 2001 15:07:26 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (WinNT; I) Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4758 Date: 2001-01-31T15:07:26+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > IDo you suppose that those who favor Duration'Small matching > the tick would want this OS command to magically change the > value of this static constant retroactively? :-) As I said somewhere back in this thread, I'd only advocate it where it was practical and useful. When you're going through an OS, you have to make allowances for what the OS is doing for you. And again, it is only important for realtime and/or embedded work where timing of things is pretty critical. Someone selling/using a platform application compiler that is being used for payroll processing is probably only going to use delays of a granularity of a second or so just for user interaction things. They don't really care if its off by a few microseconds. Do whatever you like. What I *might* advocate here is that the 'Small be set to something representing the smallest possible unit that the OS will handle - or possibly just a little more accuracy than that to allow for rounding. I just think it would be misleading if a compiler says that 'Small is going to be 0.000_000_000_000_000_001 and this has no relationship whatsoever to what the actual hardware/OS is really capable of. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - http://www.quadruscorp.com/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "I'd trade it all for just a little more" -- Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10] ======================================================================