Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!sms
From: sms@ficc.uu.net (Stanley M. Sutton)
Newsgroups: news.config
Subject: Re: Warp speed Mr. Scott!
Summary: Why use floating point?
Message-ID: <6064@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 6 Sep 89 13:18:43 GMT
References: <1989Aug21.124002.11054@robohack.uucp> <1059@aurora.AthabascaU.CA> <7561@cloud9.Stratus.COM>
Organization: Service and Test
Lines: 19

In article <7561@cloud9.Stratus.COM>, cme@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Carl Ellison) writes:
> 
> 	re. DEDICATED, DIRECT, HOURLY, POLLED, ....
> Has anyone considered enriching the format definition to include floating
> point numbers = the number of hours an incoming message could expect to wait

Why not just use minutes?  Integers are easier to track than floating.
However, the mean time for transfer may not be as useful as some of the
terms, if they are consitently used.  I.E., once a day would be a mean
time of 720 minutes for random calls, but someone who called in 10 mins
before the forward every day would only see a 10 min delay.  When the 
software at the site caluclates the mean time, how should it do it?
Worst case or calculated?

-- 
Stanley M. Sutton, Service & Test, Ferranti International Controls Corp.
uunet.uu.net!ficc!sms, sms@ficc.uu.net, bigtex!texbell!sugar!sms,
sms@sugar.hackercorp.com, (713)274-5023, PO 5012, Sugarland, TX, 77487-5012
Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or Service and Test.