Time#succ ?

[Hal Fulton]

Should this be added? It would enable the creation
of Time ranges like t1..t2 and so on.

I'd assume that seconds would be the default resolution
(although the actual resolution is platform-dependent).

Hal

[Yukihiro Matsumoto]

Hi,

In message "Time#succ ?"
on 03/11/24, Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> writes:

|Should this be added? It would enable the creation
|of Time ranges like t1..t2 and so on.
|
|I'd assume that seconds would be the default resolution
|(although the actual resolution is platform-dependent).

I like the idea. How should I treat sub-second value?

n = Time.now
p n.to_f # 1069633904.88943
p n.succ.to_f # 1069633905.88943 or 1069633905.0 or 1069633906.0?

matz.

[Hal Fulton]

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Time#succ ?"
> on 03/11/24, Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> writes:
>
> |Should this be added? It would enable the creation
> |of Time ranges like t1..t2 and so on.
> |
> |I'd assume that seconds would be the default resolution
> |(although the actual resolution is platform-dependent).
>
> I like the idea. How should I treat sub-second value?
>
> n = Time.now
> p n.to_f # 1069633904.88943
> p n.succ.to_f # 1069633905.88943 or 1069633905.0 or 1069633906.0?

I would expect the first case.

Then n.succ.to_f would behave the same as (n+1).to_f,
isn't that correct?

Hal