On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:04:47 +0100 Chris Rees wrote: > On 29 May 2013 07:13, "Matthew Seaman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Right. The fact that on very rare occasions a minute may not have > > 60 seconds in it plus many other corner cases in calculating the > > current wall-clock time is an amusing irrelevance. > > And in any case where you cared about the leap second, you would probably care that sleep doesn't wake-up on a second boundary, and can end-up in the next second. > OK, but is this really something the OS should handle? I'm sure sleep > `expr 3600 \* 2` will suffice and is perfectly readable, including > being more portable. +1 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
