At Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:15:23 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 09:19:42PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > >At Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:23:27 -0400, > >Michael Stone wrote: > >> No, not date. date has nothing to do with this, it's a libc function > >> (which is why it's reassigned to libc). I fully agree that *libc* should > >> handle the case differently, it's been confusing users for years. > > > >Did you read my mail? > > Yes, and it's not the first time you send a mail with no interest in > people's legitimate concerns without offering a rationale for your own > position.
> >Why don't you think people should check using tzselect and so on? > > Because they don't. We've gotten varients of this bug on a regular basis > for years. The current situation is obviously suboptimal, and obviously > confuses our users. In general we try to write software such that if > someone makes a typo the software gives them some indication that > they've done something wrong so that they can fix it. But in this case > the software does something completely unexpected and silently gives out > unexpected data. And so far you haven't given any indication of why you > think that's a good thing and the proposed solution is a bad thing. You argument is no sense for me without code. Regards, -- gotom