Talk:GetTimestamp: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (added comment) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Wouldn't make no sense since getRealTime accepts an unix timestamp as argument. You should create a new function for that, which accepts the arguments getTimestamp does. Or you increase the getRealTime function by giving the opportunity to either pass a timestamp (int) or a table with data like year, month, day... | Wouldn't make no sense since getRealTime accepts an unix timestamp as argument. You should create a new function for that, which accepts the arguments getTimestamp does. Or you increase the getRealTime function by giving the opportunity to either pass a timestamp (int) or a table with data like year, month, day... | ||
[[User:NeonBlack|NeonBlack]] 11:36, 14 May 2009 (CEST) | [[User:NeonBlack|NeonBlack]] 11:36, 14 May 2009 (CEST) | ||
Not really, getting the timestamp in C is straight, actually getting the year and all other fields must be calculated from the timestamp. And that field could be just a copy of the parameter if this one is specified. --[[User:Ryden|Ryden]] 15:17, 14 May 2009 (CEST) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:17, 14 May 2009
Use"ful"
This should be implemented in MTA instead, maybe as another field of the table returned by getRealTime(). --Ryden 05:46, 14 May 2009 (CEST)
Wouldn't make no sense since getRealTime accepts an unix timestamp as argument. You should create a new function for that, which accepts the arguments getTimestamp does. Or you increase the getRealTime function by giving the opportunity to either pass a timestamp (int) or a table with data like year, month, day...
NeonBlack 11:36, 14 May 2009 (CEST)
Not really, getting the timestamp in C is straight, actually getting the year and all other fields must be calculated from the timestamp. And that field could be just a copy of the parameter if this one is specified. --Ryden 15:17, 14 May 2009 (CEST)