From:	mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (George Foot)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: rawclock() and other time.h functions
Date:	20 Jun 1997 09:31:32 GMT
Organization:	Oxford University, England
Lines:	19
Message-ID:	<5odilk$9mt@news.ox.ac.uk>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970612181819 DOT 9257V-100000 AT is> <19970612 DOT 170431 DOT 8822 DOT 3 DOT bshadwick AT juno DOT com> <5o0mi4$nv1 AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> <5o1d0a$1gu AT news DOT epcc DOT edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	sable.ox.ac.uk
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Jason M. Daniels (bd733 AT rgfn DOT epcc DOT edu) wrote:
: Look, I agree that the functionality of uclock is a good thing to have. 
: However, since it already exists, why duplicate the exact same thing in 
: rawclock? Every timing mechanisim has its use; and so does the documented 
: working of rawclock.

I cannot argue why the functions are written as they are, but someone (Eli
I think) wrote elsewhere that rawclock was provided for compatibility with
other DOS compilers (Borland?) and so it would make sense to use the same
system as the compiler being emulated. I have no preference either way,
not having ever used the function.

I can't actually see much use, though, for the number of clock ticks since
midnight; to me it would just appear to complicate matters during the
witching hour.

-- 
George Foot <mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
Merton College, Oxford

- Raw text -