although naive math is, well, naive, more code exists that assumes,
for example, that midnight it time_t % 86400 == 0 than you want to
believe. Changing this is really bad karma.
The current situation is that code like your example does not accurately
reflect reality. I advocate changing the
On Fri 2008-03-28T15:28:53 +, Tony Finch hath writ:
The POSIX standard guarantees that what Warner wrote is correct.
The POSIX standard is in denial about leap seconds with respect to
UTC. I don't know about international standards, but in people I'm
sure that's not a good sign, and I try
On Fri 2008-03-28T16:04:49 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
My personal preference would be to bite the bullet and live with
the 128bit memory hit:
utc_t 64i.64f (big enough, small enough)
Whereas I am not against the notion of such, I find that nomenclature
to be
Steve Allen scripsit:
The POSIX standard is in denial about leap seconds with respect to
UTC. I don't know about international standards, but in people I'm
sure that's not a good sign, and I try to avoid such.
Not exactly. What it denies is that there is necessarily 1s between
values of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Allen writes:
On Fri 2008-03-28T16:04:49 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
My personal preference would be to bite the bullet and live with
the 128bit memory hit:
utc_t 64i.64f (big enough, small enough)
Whereas I am not against
although naive math is, well, naive, more code exists that assumes,
for example, that midnight it time_t % 86400 == 0 than you want to
believe. Changing this is really bad karma.
The current situation is that code like your example does not accurately
reflect reality.
The POSIX
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg Hennessy writes:
My claim is that if POSIX defines time_t % 86400 == 0 as being
midnight than POSIX doesn't reflect reality, [...]
Well, POSIX clearly doesn't match the scientific definition of
UTC, but as which of the two is more real is mostly a matter of
Greg Hennessy scripsit:
My claim is that if POSIX defines time_t % 86400 == 0 as being
midnight than POSIX doesn't reflect reality, since people think
midnight as being UTC rather than POSIX.
When it's midnight UTC, a properly time-aware Posix system *will*
report that time_t % 86400 == 0.
Working backwards through the messages.
On Mar 28, 2008, at 1:22 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
How is that any different than the ITU defining UTC to generally
behave as time has behaved for centuries, except that leap seconds
have a new notation (the :60 stuff)?
ITU didn't create UTC since they
On Mar 28, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Well, POSIX clearly doesn't match the scientific definition of
UTC, but as which of the two is more real is mostly a matter of
philosophy I think.
Both are human constructs. It is mean solar time that is real, that
is, the sidereal day
On Mar 28, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
It seems unlikely to me that any organization has the standing to
assert an unambiguous time scale that is both operational and
comprehensive across history.
Indeed. This is a function of Mother Earth. Smash a clock offering a
On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
But our problems with POSIX may pale soon, when the politically
ram-rodded, 7000 pages long OOXML standard for office and business
documents gets ratified by ISO as a rubberstamp standard.
As far as I know that standard gets none of leap
On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Even if we decided to fix time_t's little red wagon for
good, and got the economic resources to do so, we would be very
hard pressed to find the competent man-power to carry it out reliably.
I'm fascinated by your choice of this line of
On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
But if we call POSIX time_t by a new name (say TI) which has
international status and properties which match the specified
characteristics of time_t then what we have is enlightenment.
How about calling it GPS?
The assertion is that TAI itself
On Mar 28, 2008, at 5:22 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
As someone who has been ill-treated by
leapseconds, I fail to see why they are necessary in a society that
accepts 1hr deviation from solar mean time...
1) Again, this is confusing apparent solar time with mean solar time,
periodic effects
On Mar 28, 2008, at 4:42 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
This is exactly the flagday that will make the upgrades to a few
hundered telescopes look like peanuts.
In grad school one of my housemates was a Swedish postdoc with an
inordinate fondness for Jack Lord and Hawaii Five-O
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
However complex the current worldwide system of systems comprising our
civilization, it will only get more complex.
There are actually a significant undercurrent that indicates that this
will not be the case.
Most recent technology, while rich
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
But if we call POSIX time_t by a new name (say TI) which has
international status and properties which match the specified
characteristics of time_t then what we have is enlightenment.
How about
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes:
Per had an entertaining description of the flagday when Sweden
switched to right-side driving in 1967.
You know the danish version of that story ?
They were afraid that it would be total mayhem to do it in one go,
so the phased it in: First
On Mar 28, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The thing that seems to be widely overlooked by technologists,
possibly by the high-IQ crowd in general, is that Moores law does
not apply to wetware, and consequently, there very much is a fixed
upper limit for how much technology you can
On Mar 28, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Only if you can convince ISO9000 consultants that there is a
traceability
from this timescale (as distributed by NTP ?) to UTC which forms the
basis of legal timekeeping.
Ahoy! A requirement has been discovered!
21 matches
Mail list logo
