Index
> Main > Current Date and Time Directives |
| Author |
|
|
Tommy 04 Oct 2003, 07:17
Yes, a good idea comrade! What about date.day, date.month, date.year, time.hour, time.minute and time.second?
Regards, Tommy |
|||
04 Oct 2003, 07:17 |
|
|
scientica 04 Oct 2003, 10:34
I agree that it would be great with a such feature, what does our root (
 Privalov) say?_________________ ... a professor saying: "use this proprietary software to learn computer science" is the same as English professor handing you a copy of Shakespeare and saying: "use this book to learn Shakespeare without opening the book itself. - Bradley Kuhn |
|||
|
04 Oct 2003, 10:34 |
|
|
comrade 05 Oct 2003, 03:00
I think he would say this has to be platform independent.
|
|||
|
05 Oct 2003, 03:00 |
|
|
Yawgmoth 05 Oct 2003, 10:30
But this is assembley programming! There's no way it could be platform independent.
|
|||
|
05 Oct 2003, 10:30 |
|
|
JohnFound 05 Oct 2003, 11:04
Yawgmoth wrote: But this is assembley programming! There's no way it could be platform independent. Wrong. This is frequent mistake. 
FASM proves that assembly programs can be platform independent. BTW: Interface modules of FASM have some function for date/time. FASM uses internaly date/time information, so this information is accesible. |
|||
|
05 Oct 2003, 11:04 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 07 Oct 2003, 15:07
Yes, core already uses an interface function for getting timestamp - so it'd be very simple to provide some variable with the value of currect timestamp.
|
|||
|
07 Oct 2003, 15:07 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|