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
Precedence: bulk

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