www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Buglet] sleep() method is seriously large-grained

reply "Kris" <someidiot earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> writes:
the std.c.time.sleep(x) method argument is actually in *seconds*; this is
really not very useful <g>

Can we get it changed to represent ms instead? That is; use SleepEx() rather
than Sleep() on Win32 ...

(I know many of these functions don't guarantee granularity below around
20ms, but that's much better than a granularity of 1000ms :-)

- Kris
May 03 2004
parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Kris wrote:


 the std.c.time.sleep(x) method argument is actually in *seconds*; this is
 really not very useful <g>
 
 Can we get it changed to represent ms instead? That is; use SleepEx() rather
 than Sleep() on Win32 ...


<snip>

Better for backward and forward compatibility would be to keep it 
representing seconds, and have it take a float rather than an int.

That way:
- there'd be no need to change every existing program so that it doesn't 
run 1000 times too fast
- when an API function comes along that takes microseconds, it'll fit in 
neatly with Phobos as it stands.  At that point, the millisecond'll be a 
rather arbitrary choice of unit.  The second, OTOH, is the basic SI unit 
of time, as well as being a unit in which most people are likely to 
think, and so remains a reasonable choice.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 04 2004
next sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:


 Kris wrote:
 

 the std.c.time.sleep(x) method argument is actually in *seconds*; this is
 really not very useful <g>




<snip>

Oops, I overlooked a rather basic aspect!

It is in std.c.  This means that it is an interface to the C RTL.  So 
unless the RTL changes, std.c.time.sleep isn't going to change.

Still, we can always invent a new function with the semantics I've 
suggested....

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 04 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Kris" <someidiot earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> writes:
Wait! I take it all back. If I'd bothered to read a bit further I'd have
seen the unix-style msleep() and usleep().

Sorry :-(


I marked it as a buglet since I imagine it was actually *meant* to be ms ...
I've never seen a runtime library sleep() function that doesn't get any
finer than 1000ms intervals. It's almost worthless as it is <g>  Naturally,
there's a first time for everything.

The fact that it's still that way may indicate that no-one has really used
it yet? It's certainly not used in any of the phobos code.

The windows.d has this instead: export void Sleep(DWORD dwMilliseconds);
But that's not portable.

- Kris


"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c78hoc$kmg$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Kris wrote:


 the std.c.time.sleep(x) method argument is actually in *seconds*; this




is

 really not very useful <g>

 Can we get it changed to represent ms instead? That is; use SleepEx()




rather

 than Sleep() on Win32 ...


 <snip>

 Better for backward and forward compatibility would be to keep it
 representing seconds, and have it take a float rather than an int.

 That way:
 - there'd be no need to change every existing program so that it doesn't
 run 1000 times too fast
 - when an API function comes along that takes microseconds, it'll fit in
 neatly with Phobos as it stands.  At that point, the millisecond'll be a
 rather arbitrary choice of unit.  The second, OTOH, is the basic SI unit
 of time, as well as being a unit in which most people are likely to
 think, and so remains a reasonable choice.

 Stewart.

 --
 My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
 unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep
 replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 04 2004
parent reply "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:
"Kris" <someidiot earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote in message
news:c78mhk$so4$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Wait! I take it all back. If I'd bothered to read a bit further I'd have
 seen the unix-style msleep() and usleep().

 Sorry :-(


 I marked it as a buglet since I imagine it was actually *meant* to be ms


...

 I've never seen a runtime library sleep() function that doesn't get any
 finer than 1000ms intervals. It's almost worthless as it is <g>


Naturally,

 there's a first time for everything.

 The fact that it's still that way may indicate that no-one has really used
 it yet? It's certainly not used in any of the phobos code.


Ive used msleep.

I think these functions taken from C arent they?

Phill
May 06 2004
next sibling parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:c7d44c$1kl0$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Ive used msleep.

 I think these functions taken from C arent they?


They're not taken from C, they hook up directly to the C versions in the C
runtime library.
May 06 2004
parent "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:
"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:c7fb0q$25cg$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> wrote in message
 news:c7d44c$1kl0$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Ive used msleep.

 I think these functions taken from C arent they?


 They're not taken from C, they hook up directly to the C versions in the C
 runtime library.


Thats what I meant sorry, it was just a poor choice of
words on my part :o(
May 07 2004
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Phill wrote:

 
 Ive used msleep.
 
 I think these functions taken from C arent they?


They're optional portions of POSIX.


Sean
Nov 12 2005
parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 Phill wrote:

 Ive used msleep.

 I think these functions taken from C arent they?


 
 They're optional portions of POSIX.


Oops... and I thought I was replying to a recent post :-)


Sean
Nov 12 2005