[racket-dev] (current-date)

Oh! I see. Sorry for the confusion. I misunderstood what you're written.

Robby


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:

> `date->seconds' did not change; it still returns an exact integer.
>
> At Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:57:57 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> > Does this mean that date->seconds always returns inexacts now? Or does it
> > return inexacts only when it wouldn't be an integer?
> >
> > (I'm not excited about either possibility but the second seems bad only
> if
> > you consider TR.)
> >
> > Robby
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > > At Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:23:04 -0500, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> > > > On 2013-01-30 23:20:45 +0100, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:
> > > > >    Any reason not to define current-date in this way? there's a
> > > nanosecond
> > > > >    field there wanting to get into action.
> > > >
> > > > While we're on the subject, it's also weird that `date->seconds` has
> a
> > > > contract accepting date? and so doesn't handle date*'s extra
> nanosecond
> > > > field (note that `seconds->date` produces date*s):
> > > >
> > > >   Welcome to Racket v5.3.2.3.
> > > >   -> (require racket/date)
> > > >   -> (define s (* #i1/1000 (current-inexact-milliseconds)))
> > > >   -> s
> > > >   1359602380.5059009
> > > >   -> (date->seconds (seconds->date s))
> > > >   1359602380
> > >
> > > I've changed `current-date'.
> > >
> > > Some existing code may rely on `date->seconds' returning an exact
> > > integer, so I've added `date*->seconds'.
> > >
> > > _________________________
> > >   Racket Developers list:
> > >   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
> > >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20130201/7979408c/attachment-0001.html>