Steve Allen wrote:
> On Thu 2019-01-17T18:12:25+0100 Martin Burnicki hath writ:
>> Hm, maybe that was originally the case. I wonder whether the folks who
>> wrote the text just had UTC in mind when they "invented" time_t.
>
> The best insight into the POSIX committee was posted on LEAPSECS in
> 20
Martin Burnicki wrote:
> It's even the same if you look at different struct timespecs taken on
> the same system, but with different clock IDs. From the data type alone
> you don't know how to interpret this correctly.
We've got waaay too many time structures already, but if anyone's
in a position
Tempus fudgit anyone?
On 18/01/2019 01:40, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 17 Jan 2019 at 15:57, Brooks Harris wrote:
In private discussion with one member of that committee on that topic
it was said "... but the time people would just not stop arguing!".
Funny how everybody knows what time is but
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 1:35 AM Martin Burnicki
wrote:
> Steve Allen wrote:
> > On Thu 2019-01-17T18:12:25+0100 Martin Burnicki hath writ:
> >> Hm, maybe that was originally the case. I wonder whether the folks who
> >> wrote the text just had UTC in mind when they "invented" time_t.
> >
> > The
On 2019-01-18 17:11, Michael H Deckers wrote:
.. insert a step of 0.2 s in their time signal about every 71 days.
when he meant "about every 77 days".
Michael Deckers.
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist
