On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 10:56 +0000, Zefram wrote: > > No, the Gregorian calendar is yet another thing that doesn't imply > 86400-second days. (POSIX time_t is another.) There's a general > pattern > here that whenever there's some construct that counts or labels days, > and is (as most are) silent on the fine internal structure of those > days, > you (Brooks) interpret it as specifying that the days consist of > exactly > 86400 SI seconds. (Or atomically-realised seconds, which you do not > distinguish from SI seconds.) I cannot think of an occasion when you > have drawn that inference and been correct. > > -zefram
I beg to differ. The POSIX definition of time_t (4.16 Seconds since the Epoch) says "How any changes to the value of seconds since the Epoch are made to align to a desired relationship with the current actual time is implementation-defined. As represented in seconds since the Epoch, each and every day shall be accounted for by exactly 86400 seconds." See <http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/>. john Sauter ([email protected]) -- PGP fingerprint E24A D25B E5FE 4914 A603 49EC 7030 3EA1 9A0B 511E
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
