On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 07:29:45AM +0000, Karl O. Pinc wrote: > > On 12/17/2005 10:21:39 PM, Michael Glaesemann wrote: > > > >On Dec 18, 2005, at 13:25 , Karl O. Pinc wrote: > >>On a related note is there some reason why > >>interval + int > >>does not result in the interval plus int number > >>of seconds? > > > >Why should the int necessarily represent seconds and not some other > >amount of time? It's just a unit-less value. > > Good question. I guess it's because I couldn't corece > an int into an interval number of seconds. ;-) But if it was to be > anything it should be seconds or milliseconds as those > are the only ones that make the math easy, in the sense of > working with whole numbers. Well, generally speaking people work with time either in some native format (ie: timestamp) or as a number of seconds. I don't think there's enough consistency between time being a number of milliseconds or microseconds to warrant that. Personally, I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow timestamp + int and timestamp + double (with int and double being treated as seconds). I don't recall ever seeing an email on the lists from someone expecting time/timestamp + bare number to mean 'add X hours' or 'add X fractional seconds', but people do ask about adding X seconds pretty often. Another option would be creating a set of timestamp math functions; that would probably help cut down on the number of questions about this. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
