On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:58:55 +0100 (BST), Philip Hazel
<ph10@???> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Alex Kiernan wrote:
>
> > > And what do you do if it fails?
> >
> > Personally, I'd panic. At least a diagnostic, so we could usefully trap on it.
>
> Yes, perhaps that is best. Noted. Too late for 4.43, whose code has been
> frozen and I don't judge it important enough to unfreeze, as it's been
> this way for a long time.
>
Thats fine by me - its certainly not a problem we're seeing day in/day out.
> > > You could perhaps obey sleep(n) as an
> > > emergency fixup, where n is the time rounded up to the nearest second.
> > >
> > > Advantage: apart from a too-long delay, everything works.
> >
> > Too long as in infinite - the timer's not set, the alarm never goes
> > off, you wait forever.
>
> No, the sleep will give you the (overlong) delay instead (you don't do
> the suspend, of course). But I don't like this idea.
>
Ah, sorry, I misread what you were saying - yes agreed.
--
Alex Kiernan
