Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 02:34:10 +0300
On 7/21/22 02:29, Matheus Izvekov via Std-Discussion wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 1:21 AM Thiago Macieira via Std-Discussion
> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> It actually limits to anything short of "forever", but "a century" is allowed.
>
> It's strange that a rule would forbid something "taking forever", but
> allow any arbitrarily large duration. The rule seems to lack any bite.
Most non-realtime systems don't provide any guarantees on the timing of
operations. Putting an arbitrary number in the standard will not change
this. So, the standard uses terms like "reasonable time" to indicate
what implementations should strive for, leaving the actual performance
to QoI territory.
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 1:21 AM Thiago Macieira via Std-Discussion
> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> It actually limits to anything short of "forever", but "a century" is allowed.
>
> It's strange that a rule would forbid something "taking forever", but
> allow any arbitrarily large duration. The rule seems to lack any bite.
Most non-realtime systems don't provide any guarantees on the timing of
operations. Putting an arbitrary number in the standard will not change
this. So, the standard uses terms like "reasonable time" to indicate
what implementations should strive for, leaving the actual performance
to QoI territory.
Received on 2022-07-20 23:34:13