On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Chris Nandor wrote:
> I understood that the Unix epoch value does not include leap seconds. My
> understanding could be wrong.
>
> But just like no one cared that the celebrated millennium did not actually
> represent a completion of 2000 years since the birth of Christ, no one now
> cares that 1e9 does not actually represent 1e9 seconds since Jan 1 1970
> 00:00:00 UTC. We only care about the clock looking a certain way (and some
> of us don't even care about that :).
I think that puts it perfectly.
But for those that are interested, or even pedantic and nerdy like me,
man 2 time says:
NOTES
POSIX.1 defines seconds since the Epoch as a value to be
interpreted as the number of seconds between a specified
time and the Epoch, according to a formula for conversion
from UTC equivalent to conversion on the nave basis that
leap seconds are ignored and all years divisible by 4 are
leap years. This value is not the same as the actual num
ber of seconds between the time and the Epoch, because of
leap seconds and because clocks are not required to be
synchronised to a standard reference. The intention is
that the interpretation of seconds since the Epoch values
be consistent; see POSIX.1 Annex B 2.2.2 for further
rationale.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Allen Prescient Code Solutions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.coder.com/
== Q: What do you get when a Postmodernist joins the Mafia? ==
== A: An offer you can't understand. ==
