On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Taylor R Campbell scripsit: > > > The proposal claims that `there is about a 1 in 10^-8 probability that > > a computation of elapsed time made by calling this procedure twice > > will be off by 1.' This langauge suggests that there is some random > > chance involved here. But there isn't: leap seconds aren't drawn > > uniformly at random from time. Instead, in a network of POSIX agents > > with reasonably accurate and well-synchronized clocks, every agent > > will observe an erratic clock simultaneously, once every few years. > > I have removed this paragraph. > > The real point of the 10^-8 is that an interval clock cannot keep the > difference between Posix and UTC time unless it is at least that > accurate, which is very improbable. > > This is still a great misunderstanding. Many computers have perfectly good accuracy on that level without any trouble, because they use things like NTP to keep themselves in sync. Thomas
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
