Re: [squeak-dev] Re: What do you expect to get from Duration>>seconds and Time>>seconds?

> 2008/5/10 nicolas cellier <ncellier@...>:
> > Ken Causey a écrit :
> >>
> >> One of the issues reported against 3.10 is that 'Time now seconds'
> >> returns a fraction and not an integer as it did in 3.9 (and presumably
> >> before).  It turns out the fact that it was an integer previously was an
> >> artifact of the fact that the clock did not provide sub-second
> >> precision.  Now that it does it returns a fraction.  All along the
> >> actual calculation of seconds was done in Duration>>seconds and since
> >> 2003 that calculation has taken nanoseconds into consideration and
> >> clearly would return a fraction if nanoseconds is non-zero.
> >>
> >> I think it's reasonable to get a fraction from Duration>>seconds since
> >> sub-second durations are not unusual.  Maybe someone else expects to get
> >> a 0 in that case, if so please speak up.
> >>
> >> However what about Time>>seconds?  The ANSI protocol specifies
> >> Duration>>seconds simply specifying that it returns a number, but there
> >> is no specification for Time>>seconds or DateAndTime>>seconds at all.
> >> It does however specify DateAndTime>>second though and again it only
> >> says 'number'.  So it seems to be time to gather opinions.
> >>
> >> Ken
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Then why Time now minutes and Time now hours return an Integer instead of a
> > Fraction?
> >
> Right, and if user wants more precise values, we can always add
> Time>>milliseconds microseconds nanoseconds picaseconds e.t.c
>
> > The most consistent behaviour is to answer number of seconds truncated to an
> > Integer.
> > That's the least surprising behaviour I would expect.
> >
> > Nicolas