John Sauter wrote: > Not being a traditionalist myself, I don't feel that there is anything > wrong with 23:59:60 as a label for a particular second. Thus, I don't > feel the need to map the 86,401 seconds of the last day of 2016 into > 86,400 "holes", and therefore I do not suffer any indeterminacy.
I think for many applications the 23:59:60 labeling would not be a problem. However, if the kernel just steps the time back to insert a leap second, and a particular binary second number appears twice in a sequence there is no way for most commonly used library functions to determine that one of them is a leap second, and thus you get 23:59:59 twice instead of :59 :60. Martin _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
