On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 12:17:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "dates who's result" should be "dates whose result."
> It's still horrible English :-(  A date hasn't got a result, much
> less one that includes a daylight savings time adjustment period.

Good point.

> We should rewrite the entire paragraph.  Maybe
>       Days that contain a daylight savings time adjustment are not 24
>       hours, but typically 23 or 25 hours. This change creates a
>       conceptual distinction between intervals of "so many days"
>       and intervals of "so many hours".  Adding '1 day' to a timestamp
>       now gives the same local time on the next day even if a daylight
>       savings time adjustment occurs between, whereas adding '24 hours'
>       will give a different local time when this happens.  For example:

Sounds reasonable.

BTW, I don't know what's correct in other countries, but in the US
it's officially "daylight saving time" (singular "saving").


Not that anybody actually says it that way ;-)

Michael Fuhr
(Who'd be happy to live on UTC and do away with timezones and DST altogether.)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to