On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:27:09 -0600, Mike Schwab wrote: > >What I would like to see, but I doubt it would ever be implemented, >would be like the Leap Second rule. If you need to drop a second, you >skip the last second of June 30 or December 31. If you need to add a >second, you have another second at the end of June 30 or December 31, >enumberated as 23:59:60. For falling back, instead of repeating the >hour from 01:00 to 02:00, extend the 1 oclock and 2 oclock hour from >60 minutes to 90 minutes. 0000-0059, 0100-0189, 0200-0289, 0300-0359. >On an manually set clock change during the time change, you let the >clock run to 30 minutes past the hour during minutes 60-89, set it >back 30 minutes, let it run for 90 minutes for the 00-89 minutes, and >set the clock back another 30 minutes. > Ummm. You distribute it over 2 hours in order not to need to deal with a 3-digit minute? Could you get the keepers of Civil Time to sign off on this scheme?
There remains a concern of how much it would break otherwise. Notice, for example that the z/OS leap second support idles down for a second in order that users (and the TIME function need lot deal with the 23:59:60.hh) -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
