On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:35:39PM +0100, Zefram wrote: > Eugene van der Pijll wrote: > >For every future leap second, there will be a version of DT that > >handles it correctly. That the current implementation can not, is only > >an implentation problem :-). > > Having the implementation thus permanently buggy seems like a bad idea. > Also, the version of DT that someone is using might not even know about > leap seconds that have already happened. You'll get different answers > from different versions, not just at different times.
How is it buggy? It is not possible to accurately determine that earths rotational period that far into the future. > >Seriously, for problems like "2030-06-30T23:59:59Z + 1 second = ????", > >you need to make an assumption about future leap seconds. > > I think the only correct approach is to assume nothing and answer "I > don't know". So what are you proposing? Modeling future leapseconds? That would be just as bad as there may never be another leapsecond. I would really like to hear your solution to this problem. -J --
pgpmNGSIcPf0N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
