In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
om>, "Seeds, Glen" writes:
>This was not an oversight. Considerable analysis went into understanding
>how this would work. The bottom line is that it's not a problem for all
>but a very few applications, which have ways to work around it. These
>same applications have timekeeping synchronization costs that are far
>larger than the costs of these workarounds.
One of the better arguments for getting rid of leapseconds is seen
by printing this page:
http://david.tribble.com/text/c0xlongtime.html
And then marking all the stuff that would not be necessary and remove
all the support for optionally represented leapseconds.
There is a lot less left afterwards.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
