[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: encode-time vs decode-time

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: encode-time vs decode-time
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 02:33:22 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

"Broken-down time" will replace "decoded time", I presume?  I think
I'm okay with that, but what will we use instead of "encoded time"

Currently the documentation uses "Lisp timestamp" for encoded timestamps that builtins can return: these are Lisp integers, integer pairs (TICKS . HZ) where HZ is positive, and the traditional four-integer lists (HI LO US PS).

The documentation uses the term "time value" for a brader class of timestamps that builtins accept. These are the Lisp timestamps, nil, floats, (HI LO US), and (HI LO).

I'm OK with sticking with this terminology, as it hasn't seemed to have been as confusing as "decoded time". As far as I can see, the documentation doesn't use the term "encoded time" which would indeed be confusing.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]