clipka a écrit :
> Warp schrieb:
>>   Check the last parameter of this constructor:
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z9ah41zs(VS.80).aspx
>>
>>   Two major problems:
>>
>> 1) A billionth of a second already has a well-established name:
>> Nanosecond.
>> 2) In reality that parameter represents microseconds.
> 
> 1.5) In various non-English speaking cultures, "billion" may lead to
> confusion (see "Long and short scales" on Wikipedia). Nanoseconds, on
> the other hand, would be pretty clear for everyone.
> 

That's on purpose: MS values the american users more.

Their 1 bilisecondth is just the same as 1000 of mine!

On the other hand, I would be glad to report my time with a precision of
picosecond (excepted a 32 bits would make some time value unreachable, a
42 bits value would be fine... answering THE question: with which
precision, as a power of 1/2 of the second unit, should workers/slaves
report their time to their master ?)


Regarding that bilisecond being in fact microsecond, that's logical (for
US-MS !):

million, then billion, 10^3 more
milisecond, then bilisecond, 10^3 more too ( s/mil/bil/, same rule,
logical, therefore true! )

of course, realname of nanosecond should be trilisecond (like US
trillion is 10^3 billion)

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.<br/>
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?<br/>
A: Top-posting.<br/>
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Post a reply to this message