forwarded message from Henry Cejtin

[Stephen Weeks]

Received: from maguro.epr.com ([198.3.162.27]) by exchange.epr.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13)
	id JBTNN31X; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:36:53 -0700
Received: from magrathea.epr.com (firewall-user@magrathea.epr.com [198.3.160.1])
	by maguro.epr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09930
	for <sweeks@intertrust.com>; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by magrathea.epr.com (8.9.3/8.7.3) id QAA19304 for <sweeks@intertrust.com>; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nodnsquery(199.249.165.245) by magrathea.epr.com via smap (V5.5)
	id xma019293; Sat, 21 Apr 01 16:37:38 -0700
Received: (from henry@localhost)
	by syzygy.clairv.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26730
	for sweeks@intertrust.com; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:37:37 -0500
Message-Id: <200104212337.SAA26730@syzygy.clairv.com>
From: Henry Cejtin <henry@sourcelight.com>
To: sweeks@intertrust.com
Subject: Re: Time exception
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:37:37 -0500

It  isn't  really a bug in the man stuff, there is no choice.  I.e., when the
counter gets to 2^31, what can you return?  I agree that making  it  unsigned
would  be  slightly better in some ways (but you get other problems then with
comparisons).

I agree that making it a Word32.word is the right change, but note, you could
still get pimped some times.  If, for instance, the interval of times spans a
wrap, the comparison in the test would still fail.  The conclusion to  me  is
that the test is wrong.