Re: after ids

On Jul 5, 6:56 pm, Kevin Kenny <kenn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't personally have the time at the moment to
tackle such a project, but if someone else wants to
draft a TIP and attempt a reference implementation,
I'd be willing to shepherd them through the process.

Kevin, two questions:

(1) Why are you suggesting a new TIP, while 302 already has most of
the background (at least for non-Darwin systems) ?

(2) Do I understand correctly that your suggestion now is in line with
TIP#302's initial proposal (and title), in that we could *change*
today's [after] so that, without any extra option, it would now resort
to relative time when available, so be "fixed" for 99.9%[*] of cases,
and separately add a new primitive like [at], taking an absolute
target as a parameter, and built on the current [after]'s machinery ?

-Alex

[*] the 0.1% being, so far, "Kevin's case". I'm not against the label
"*** POTENTIAL INCOMPATIBILIY ***" in the release notes if it improves
the lives of 99.9% of the Tcl world ;-)
.

Relevant Pages