[Seaside] Re: [squeak-dev] What do you expect to get from Duration>>seconds and Time>>seconds?

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Sat May 10 09:39:45 UTC 2008

2008/5/10 Ken Causey <ken at kencausey.com>:
> One of the issues reported against 3.10 is that 'Time now seconds'
> returns a fraction and not an integer as it did in 3.9 (and presumably
> before).  It turns out the fact that it was an integer previously was an
> artifact of the fact that the clock did not provide sub-second
> precision.  Now that it does it returns a fraction.  All along the
> actual calculation of seconds was done in Duration>>seconds and since
> 2003 that calculation has taken nanoseconds into consideration and
> clearly would return a fraction if nanoseconds is non-zero.
> I think it's reasonable to get a fraction from Duration>>seconds since
> sub-second durations are not unusual.  Maybe someone else expects to get
> a 0 in that case, if so please speak up.
> However what about Time>>seconds?  The ANSI protocol specifies
> Duration>>seconds simply specifying that it returns a number, but there
> is no specification for Time>>seconds or DateAndTime>>seconds at all.
> It does however specify DateAndTime>>second though and again it only
> says 'number'.  So it seems to be time to gather opinions.

One glitch, which i found, is how Seaside interprets it and uses

Time seconds asTwoCharacterString  to display date&time in tests.

this leads to DNU because #asTwoCharacterString implemented for
Integer class, not for Fraction.

> Ken

Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

More information about the seaside mailing list