On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 12:59 PM -0800 3/3/04, Larry Wall wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:21:37AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote: > >: On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Larry Wall wrote: > >: Anyways, I recall some discussion on p6l from years ago about using > >: TAI (and I think specifically libtai) as the internal time format > >: for p6. Is this still the case? > > > >As I said, I don't care what the internal time format is. I'm just > >sticking up for the average user of the next millenium. It's my > >gut-level feeling that 99% of users would prefer that continuous > >time be represented by a pseudo-continuous type like floating pint, > >and that we should all settle on an epoch that will still be easy to > >remember in the year 2149. So I think the default public interface > >needs to be floating point seconds since 2000.
UTC may stop having leapseconds all together. :) That would make the year 2000 epoch attractive as negative values would have leapseoncds while positive values would not. The problem is that "Wall's Clock" system is going to have to documented and explained as much as another other choice would. > That, as they say, turns out not to be the case. UTC has leap > seconds, TAI doesn't. The two are slowly diverging--off by 32 seconds > right now, and probably off by 33 this year or next, with extra > seconds added irregularly. (It's why the decoded time array's seconds > goes from 0-60 rather than 0-59) It actually needs to goto 61 to properly support UTC. :) -J --
