At 22:07 -0600 2000.08.15, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>NOTICE: reply-to set to the -language-datetime list.
>
>Ted Ashton writes:
>> Well then, why 1970? If we're defining our own, why buy into one
>> which is scheduled to blow up in 2038? Why not at the very least
>> start with Jan 1, 2K?
>
>This works, provided epoch seconds are stored in some form of big
>integers (either arbitrary precision, or 64-bit). The epoch change
>would then be fine by me. But epoch changes don't solve the 2038
>problem, Unix already tried that before the move to 32-bit integers
>(they moved the epoch from 1970 to 1971, I think, when their previous
>size of integer was about to run out of space, then when it ran out
>again next year they said "yeah, ok, wrong solution" :-).
Yeah; if you change us Macs to 1970 instead of 1904, we actually run out of
time two years earlier! No thanks ...
--
Chris Nandor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://pudge.net/
Andover.Net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://slashcode.com/
