Ken Causey a écrit :
> 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.
> 
> Ken
> 
> 

Then why Time now minutes and Time now hours return an Integer instead 
of a Fraction?

The most consistent behaviour is to answer number of seconds truncated 
to an Integer.
That's the least surprising behaviour I would expect.

Nicolas