On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:26:38 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote: >On 3 January 2017 at 11:23, Paul Gilmartin ><[email protected]> wrote: >> Sometimes I sneer at z/OS for sidestepping the problem by shutting down >> for the leap second and suggest that instead the TIME macro should return >> hh:59:60 for the duration. But sometimes I succumb to reality: > >TIME has options to return several other formats, including TOD-style >time. What would it do with those, where the hh:59:60 representational >notion doesn't work? > TOD is a 64 (128?) bit binary number. It's oblivious to leap seconds, like TAI. Where do you see a problem?
-- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
