Brooks Harris wrote: > Yes, there is no uninterrupted incrementing numbering that represents UTC. > Indeed, that's the whole point, isn't it?
Right. This is one of the fundamental aspects of the whole situation. *Anything* you do that tries to work with UTC as if it were, or tries to map UTC onto, a single, monotonic count of seconds is suspect. If you are using a monotonic count of seconds, there's already a name for it, and that name is: TAI. (And if despite that, you're still trying to work with a *UTC* count of monotonic seconds, there's a name for that, too, and it is: time_t. And we know how well that works at handling leap seconds.) _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
