On 9/23/11 10:13 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message<4e7cbca1.9010...@earthlink.net>, Jim Lux writes:
What I'd like to do is take the next step beyond what you promulgated
with a representation of time and the conversion between count and time
with a linear equation.
I'd like to propose a standard description of a higher order model of
time and the transformation between raw clock and time (in some agreed
upon time scale).
Ouch...
That's one tough nut to generalize...
Are you even sure it makes sense to generalize it ?
3. The only thing worse than generalizing from one example
is generalizing from no examples at all.
(From Gettys rules for X11)
Well, that *is* why I asked the assembled multitude... you might be
right, but I'd hate to say "it's not worth it" and then have someone pop
up and say "but why don't we use XYZ standard" And, if we don't want to
standardize, it's always nice to explicitly say "we are not specifying
this deliberately and ANY implementation conforms to the standard"
(which means for interoperability, you can't assume that the other side
is doing it a particular way, so you'd have to explicitly define an
interface description).
One aspect of why at least a standardized second order model would be
nice is that it allows you to make smooth non-discontinuous changes in
rate. the transformation from count to time would be discontinuous in
rate of rate (i.e. it would go from zero, to something, to zero), but
continuous in terms of rate.
Even just promulgating a standard way of changing the transformation
might be useful. For instance, That it occurs at a time defined in terms
of the old transformation,and at that time, we use the new
transformation. (this is like the daylight saving time sort of thing.
At 2AM old time, it is instantly 1 AM new time)
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
