Tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > I like the concept of time stamps.
> So do I, unless it costs a lot - although keystroke and mouse button
> events are usually relatively slow (ie maybe a couple of hundred aminute
> at worst) some events (people have been considering serial or
> socket events for example) might be much higher bandwidth and could
> cause a problem if getting the time is costly. Something to keep an eye
> on; some OSs provide timestamps on event, some don't. Some have
> expensive clock() calls, some are cheap. We have to check and make sure
> we don't make life good on one platform by ruining it on another, just
> like always.
> 
> 

Hmm, I just put these two ideas together.  On Unix, the timestamps for X
events are going to be based on a completely separate clock from the
ones for sockets.  I guess the VM can just stamp the times itself, and
ignore whatever X says, but something is definately lost: the input
events will be less precise!

The alternatives on Unix seem to be:

	1. Only use *input events*, and allow for precise timings.
	2. Mix all events into the same queue, but use imprecise timings.



-Lex