Nick Andrew writes:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:39:00PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
>> If it was my call, I would probably do the same thing. Way too many
>> developers get simple things like "this day has no 2:30AM" or "this day has
>> two 2:00AMs" wrong.
>
> That's why Daylight Savings is f
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 16:56 +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> ...but the real question is if we love or hate the GMT/UTC difference, and
> 23:59:61?
>
> Daniel
>
> Also, do we hate the earthquake that changed the length of the day for messing
> with our time-keeping?
> http://www.sciencedail
On 1 April 2010 16:56, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Nick Andrew writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:39:00PM +1100, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>>
>>> If it was my call, I would probably do the same thing. Way too many
>>> developers get simple things like "this day has no 2:30AM" or "this day has
>>> two
On 1 April 2010 17:11, Peter Hardy wrote:
> None of this would be a problem if we'd just switch to decimal time in a
> single timezone and call it a day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and
Of course, that brings up the issue of WHAT day it is, and the need to
cleanly support non-gregorian calendars. And the next thing you know,
incrementing by a day involves half a CPU second because you need to
run a physical model of the orbit of the moon to work out if you are
at a month boundary.
On Thursday 15 April 2010 13:35:13 Adam Kennedy wrote:
> And the next thing you know,
> incrementing by a day involves half a CPU second because you need to
> run a physical model of the orbit of the moon to work out if you are
> at a month boundary.
If you're trying to deal with that calendar, ev
