On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Zefram wrote: > > Interval clock and real-time clock remain conceptually distinct. If you > have a single clock counter alongside a variable epoch, the sum of the > two is the effective real-time clock. I don't think you're gaining > anything by not reifying it.
I'm gaining simplicity. A count of seconds (perhaps fractional) is much simpler than a broken-down time. It's much simpler to keep a simple interval representation separate from leap second and time zone handling. Your points about recording adjustments across reboots are useful, thanks. > The solution is to just let the clock run, never adjust it, and treat > it as an independent seconds count. You don't care about it showing > the wrong time, because you don't treat its output as an absolute time. > Instead, collect your data on how far out it is (or rather, what absolute > time -> output function it is computing) and add the epoch in software. > Any number of users of the same clock can do this without treading on > each other's toes. I think that's what I was suggesting :-) Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND PLYMOUTH: WEST 6 TO GALE 8, OCCASIONALLY SEVERE GALE 9 AT FIRST IN THAMES AND DOVER, DECREASING 4 OR 5 LATER. ROUGH, OCCASIONALLY MODERATE LATER. SHOWERS DYING OUT. GOOD.
