> On Mar 8, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Brooks Harris <bro...@edlmax.com> wrote: > I think the only way the industry can eventually converge on reliable "civil > time" representation is to refine the underlying time mechanisms in POSIX in > some manner that allows a migration to a more comprehensive UTC > implementation. I think if a new new POSIX time specification were to take > shape it would add an option to the the conversation at ITU-R - instead of > simply "to kill Leap Seconds or not" they'd also have "a viable migration > path to comprehensive UTC timekeeping implementation" to consider.
I think you vastly underestimate the amount of effort this change would entail. We’d trade an off by 1 second every other year problem for an off by 36s problem in many different places. Even if we left time_t as a legacy thing, and defined a whole new set of interfaces that did things pedantically correct, that’s a lot of effort to code and adopt. And there’s almost no economic incentive to drive the change. You’d need to change the “It’s just a second, who cares?” attitude before meaningful progress can be made in getting leap seconds right. Warner
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
