Neal McBurnett said:
UT1:Flamsteads birthday ?
Cute. 1646-08-19
O.S. or N.S.?
At least it wasn't January, which would have added a third option.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Tel:+44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:59:42PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I would far rather we tried to define a time API for
POSIX to adopt that makes sense.
By make sense I mean:
o conforms to relevant international standards
ie: recognizes the defininition of leap seconds
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neal McBurnett writes:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:59:42PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Assign different timescales very different
numeric epochs:
TAI:1972-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
For TAI I'd suggest 1958-01-01, when TAI and UT
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], M. Warner Losh writes:
I like this idea as well...
Poul, maybe we should implement this on FreeBSD.
I'd suggest working_time_t or correct_time_t as the name of the
type to replace time_t which would be deprecated. :-)
plenty_time_t :-)
--
Poul-Henning Kamp |
M. Warner Losh wrote on 2006-01-19 19:35 UTC:
: Therefore, if people ask me for my favourite epoch for a new time scale,
: then it is
:
: 2000-03-01 00:00:00 (preferably UTC, but I would not mind much
:if it were TAI, or even GPS time)
:
: This epoch has the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Markus Kuhn writes:
All I wanted to say is that for a good choice of epoch, it would be nice
if we agreed on it not only to within a few seconds (the leap-second
problem), but also to within a few milli- or microseconds (the SI/TAI
second problem). The latter seems
