On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Stefan Bethke wrote: SB>Am 21.01.2005 um 19:18 schrieb Poul-Henning Kamp: SB> SB>> In message <41F14659.8040003_at_mac.com>, Chuck Swiger writes: SB>> > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: SB>> > > I just read another brain-dead proposal for a new timeformat SB>> > > which appearantly is in the ISO C queue and I would really SB>> > > like if we can avoid having another damn mistake in that area. SB>> > > (http://david.tribble.com/text/c0xlongtime.html) SB>> > SB>> > I tried to figure out what was wrong with the proposal, and came up with SB>> > this: SB>> > SB>> > "The longtime_t type represents a system time as an integral number of SB>> > ticks SB>> > elaped since the beginning of the long time epoch. Each tick is two SB>> > nanoseconds in length. The epoch begins at {AD 2001-01-01 00:00:00.000 SB>> > Z}. SB>> > SB>> > Long time values represent dates across the range of {AD 1601-01-01 SB>> > 00:00:00 SB>> > Z} to {AD 2401-01-01 00:00:00 Z} within the proleptic Gregorian SB>> > calendar." SB>> SB>> Lets take just the two worst mistakes: SB> SB>Maybe the author of these proposals hasn't had the opportunity to enjoy SB>Calendrical Calculations by Reingold and Dershowitz. (Their homepage is at SB>http://emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/index.shtml) You should really take over this discussion to comp.std.c. There was a loooong discussion about this proposal two or three months ago. There seems to be one or two people on that list with time background. The author of the proposal also asked for comments, so you are free to feed them either directly to him or through c.s.c. hartiReceived on Mon Jan 24 2005 - 06:49:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:26 UTC