Zefram wrote:
Rick Measham wrote:
my $riyadh_lmt = DateTime::TimeZone::LMT->new(
longitude => 46 + (43 / 60) + (27 / 3600)
);
How much error in time conversions is introduced by the floating point
rounding?
DateTime allows for a one-second precision in the offset, so while LMT
passes a f
Zefram schreef:
> So *legally speaking* the standard time in the UK is based on what we
> now call UT1. It is an astronomical timescale.
I've read some of the relevant parliamentary debates now, and you're
right. That still doesn't mean that our TZ Europe/London should be based
on UT1: the time t
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
> it's the difference
>between GPS and TAI(GPS) that is fixed, right?
Forgot to reply to this earlier.
Yes, strictly speaking the equation is
TAI(GPS) = GPST + 19 s
I've been using the term "GPS time" slight
Rick Measham wrote:
>my $riyadh_lmt = DateTime::TimeZone::LMT->new(
>longitude => 46 + (43 / 60) + (27 / 3600)
>);
How much error in time conversions is introduced by the floating point
rounding?
>A thought: it might be good to somehow include the ability to load other
>TZ modules from a str
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
>> Civil time in the UK is not legally based on UTC;
>
>I believe this to be incorrect. British Standard Time, aka
>"Europe/London", certainly observes leap seeconds, and is therefore
>based on UTC. Maybe the legal definition is still in terms of GMT,
(The name "British
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
If I were to implement these time scales for DateTime, I would probably
implement them as subclasses of UT1 (or "LMT") and LAT, with the
geographical longitude as parameter; "LMT+46d43m27s" for Riyadh legal
time, for example. But your notation is reasonable as well.
Zefram schreef:
> I note that DT::TZ::TAI
> attempts to treat TAI as a timezone, which doesn't work 100% but does
> put TAI in roughly the right relationship to the other DT objects.
As you say, TZ::TAI does not work 100% prefectly. It has turned
out to be impossible to implement it correctly, bec
Hi, Time::Local 1.14 is broken on Win32. You removed a test but forgot
to decrease a skip count.
Kenichi
--- Local.t 2007-01-22 22:06:35.359375000 +0900
+++ Local.t.patched 2007-01-22 22:16:27.18750 +0900
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@
SKIP:
{
-skip 'this platform does not support negative
