Re: after ids
- From: Andreas Leitgeb <avl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 04 Jul 2008 08:57:42 GMT
Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferrieux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Would [clock alarm] make sense, rather than adding a new [at] command?
Its placement as a sub-command of [clock] also points directly at the
fact that this command is based on wall-clock time, rather than elapsed
time.
An alias is always possible of course, but keep in mind that this wall-
clock semantics has been attached to [after] since the beginning,
But always in contradiction to documentation:
" after ms
" Ms must be an integer giving a time in milliseconds.
" The command sleeps for ms milliseconds and then returns.
" ...
" after ms ?script script script ...?
" ..., but it arranges for a Tcl command to be executed
" ms milliseconds later as an event handler.
There is no mention that the future wallclock time is calculated
and then awaited but only of a timespan that's supposed to pass.
it must stay that way. So you also should invent a nice name for theI disagree.
new, truly relative timers...
PS: The whole issue is only relevant if the underlying system
clock has a tendency to run unsteadily, which was probably
the reason for not caring back when "after" was designed.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: after ids
- From: Donal K. Fellows
- Re: after ids
- References:
- Re: after ids
- From: Fredderic
- Re: after ids
- From: Alexandre Ferrieux
- Re: after ids
- Prev by Date: Re: Events on Serial port
- Next by Date: regarding logging
- Previous by thread: Re: after ids
- Next by thread: Re: after ids
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|