Tom, Tom Van Baak wrote: >> What I meant is that if you try to derive the date of the last recent >> leap second from WNlsf if the 2 offsets *are* the same, the result is >> ambiguous since you don't know if you are in a +/- 128 weeks interval, >> or if another 256 weeks interval has passed. That's exactly what we are >> observing right now. > > Let me explain a cute trick. The ± 128 or modulo-256 week ambiguity that > you mention is certainly true, as well as the 19.x year 1024 week GPS WNRO > that we all know. > > But look one step deeper. Each 8-bit week number and 3-bit day number used > to describe the most recent or pending leap second must necessarily be the > last day of a calendar month, per UTC rules, yes? It turns out this fact > can be used to resolve the ambiguity that you speak of. [...]
This is really cute! If you permit, I'll see if we can add this to our driver software packages. Thanks, Martin _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
