At 9:07 PM +0200 10/11/09, Magnus Danielson wrote:
Joe,
So in many ways UTC and time_t are only superficially similar things.
time_t is a half-assed attempt to do the right thing for time. It
generally works for most people most of the time, but is wrong where
it doesn't match reality.
POSIX Time (time_t) solves the problems it was intended to solve,
but may be half-assed in the context of problems that it was never
intended to solve. The issue is not that POSIX Time is right or
wrong, but that it is misapplied. Screwdrivers don't make very
good chisels, and chisels don't make very good screwdrivers, even
if each is the best of its kind.
The trouble is that it is the only basic tool provided, it looks
like "time" to most than a few and no directions was given to what
needs to be done if proper time is needed. Being the wrong tool but
the only tool, we get forced to use it anyway.
True enough, but the problem seems to be more the seeing of UTC where
there is none than problems with what is in fact provided.
Actually, POSIX allows one to have multiple named clocks, but I don't
know of any large platform vendor that has taken advantage of the
option.
We still need to figure out a good way to resolve the issue and let
there be a method by which it can be implemented.
Yes. Here is my posting to the POSIX Committee (and Austin Group) on
the requirements, summarizing debate up till then:
<http://www.opengroup.org/austin/mailarchives/austin-group-l/msg02131.html>
Joe Gwinn
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
