On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Zefram wrote:
> Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>>probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data structures
>>be designed to handle this case or not bother?
>
> Data structures should certainly allow for the possibility, but in
> space-constrained cases c
Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data structures
>be designed to handle this case or not bother?
Data structures should certainly allow for the possibility, but in
space-constrained cases can be optimised based on the understanding that
it's rela
o: "Tom Van Baak" ; "Leap Second Discussion List"
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Negative TAI-UTC
> Tom Van Baak said:
>> Yes, of course. This is not the 1960's where saving a byte was an all-day
>> decision. The spec is
Tom Van Baak said:
> Yes, of course. This is not the 1960's where saving a byte was an all-day
> decision. The spec is clear. Follow it.
Actually, some of us work in fields where every byte is still expensive.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: cl...@davros.org
> On February 4, 2017 at 4:41 PM "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote:
>
>
> Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think the
> probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data structures
> be designed to handle this case or not bother?
>
In addition to any astr
On 2017-02-04 03:27 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2017-02-04 12:24 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Clive D.W. Feather
wrote:
Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think
the
probability is tha
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
> On 2017-02-04 12:24 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Clive D.W. Feather
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think
>>> the
>>> probability is that TAI-UTC will ever b
On 2017-02-04 12:24 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think the
probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data structures
be designed to handle this case or not bothe
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>> Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think the
>> probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data structures
>> be designed to handle this
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think the
> probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data structures
> be designed to handle this case or not bother?
Doubtful, but not impossible.
LoD w
ncer (see below) if you lie to a time scale it will get revenge.
/tvb
- Original Message -
From: "Clive D.W. Feather"
To: "Leap Second Discussion List"
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 8:41 AM
Subject: [LEAPSECS] Negative TAI-UTC
> Looking only into the futur
On Sat, 2017-02-04 at 16:41 +, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people
> think the
> probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data
> structures
> be designed to handle this case or not bother?
>
I think it is very unlikely
Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think the
probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data structures
be designed to handle this case or not bother?
--
Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: cl...@davros.org | it will g
13 matches
Mail list logo
