[Gllug] time_t 1e9

[Chris Ball]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 01:04:07PM +0100, Gordon Joly wrote:
> And will some programs fail?

*runs away screaming*

Some will. Most won't. I think the only way my code's going to break is
if I've used 'cmp' (lexical) instead of '<=>' (numeric) sorts on
datestamps in perl; putting a number that begins with '1' as smaller than 
one that begins with '9', even though it's longer. This would Not Be Good,
considering I've been working with oracle databases that index on time_t
stamps. :o)

So far all looks fine, though. I'm not going to be sitting in a data
centre with baited breath, or anything. Should just be a good opportunity
to stare at an incrementing timestamp while drinking, really. :) 

~C.

-- 
Chris Ball.
chris at cpan.org || http://printf.net/
"As to luck, there is the old miners' proverb: 'Gold is where you find it.'" 

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug