On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Alex Shinn wrote: > > True. You said that a good thing about providing TAI clock is that > > you can easily obtain current POSIX seconds from it. Correct? My > > argument is that you can't. > > The intent was that `current-posix-seconds' can be easily > implemented in terms of `current-tai-seconds'.
So, `current-posix-seconds' are seconds since POSIX epoch, not POSIX time as you initially phrased it? In this case, I agree. > Other instances > of POSIX time such as found in timestamps and timers can > also be converted ... given an up-to-date leap second table, which isn't generally available. Correct? > > Now I'm confused. Will the date object internally store only TAI > > seconds? > > Why are you trying so hard to put such strange words > into my mouth? I apologize. The source of my misreading is this: > I'm suggesting using TAI to represent [...] a record-like > data type for dates. Now I see that you meant a different thing. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
