On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:12 AM, Paul Sheer wrote: > > >> >> It seems from this that there are always a few people advertising >> leap seconds when they shouldn't be... >> > > > previously i proposed that any code that measures a fail-timeout make > that timeout 1000ms longer whenever t % 86400 is near zero
I assume that you mean near 0 or near 86400 since % is unsigned. > this pattern would duck most bugs With timeouts, yes. With other things, not so much... > these bogus advertisements seem like another good reason to implement > this It says a lot about the robustness of leap seconds... Warner _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
