On Feb 24, 6:05 am, markjr...@gmail.com (Mark J. Reed) wrote:
Fair enough: official TAI is only known exactly after the fact.
Does official TAI means what BIPM says it means, and just plain
TAI means whatever perl6 wants it to mean?
TAI is an achievement for technical merits, but even moreso
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:02:02AM +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
- Time Zone, which can differ from GMT by halves of an hour.
quarter hours in at least one place (Nepal)
This doesn't affect your reasoning.
Also, time zone abbreviations are ambiguous. PST can be
Pacific Standard Time,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
So why have the duration TAI-based?
Simply because TAI is supposedly immutable as a scale, so it's predictable.
Gregorian time is not immutable and timezone definitions are not anyhow
predictable.
OK, this seems to be a
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:02:02AM +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
- Time Zone, which can differ from GMT by halves of an hour.
quarter hours in at least one place (Nepal)
This doesn't affect your reasoning.
Also, time zone abbreviations are
Em Dom, 2010-02-21 às 21:09 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
I now see that the most important determinant of DateTimes is
neither the Dates nor the Times themselves, but which TZ you're in.
I propose renaming Temporal to TZ, so we get TZ::Date, TZ::Time, etc,
since they're all dependent primarily
Em Dom, 2010-02-21 às 21:28 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:39:20AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: I just want to know what Perl 6 time zero is.
Well, there's no such thing as time 0 in Perl 6, in the sense that
Instant is more-or-less opaque.
I'd just like to add that
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
Em Dom, 2010-02-21 às 21:28 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:39:20AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: I just want to know what Perl 6 time zero is.
Well, there's no such thing as time 0 in Perl 6, in the
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com wrote:
Not according to S0, which says that an Instant will numify to the
^
S02.
number of TAI seconds since the TAI epoch. That's not opaque.
--
Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
The biggest difference proposed by the use of TAI is that when you ask
for the number of seconds between 2008-12-31T23:59:59+ and
2009-01-01T00:00:00+ you'll get 2 because of the leap second. But
you don't need to
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
And my point is precisely that the spec doesn't define it because it is
implementation and architecture dependant.
And what's the point of making it so? If you require arithmetic
results in TAI seconds, I don't see the
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Buddha Buck blaisepas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
The biggest difference proposed by the use of TAI is that when you ask
for the number of seconds between 2008-12-31T23:59:59+ and
2010/2/22 Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com
If the interface between Perl time and human time is going to be done
through UTC, then I don't see the point in specifying that it's TAI
behind the scenes. Especially if you're not specifying the epoch.
The number of seconds between two points in
On Feb 22, 2:23 pm, markjr...@gmail.com (Mark J. Reed) wrote:
I submit that if the inputs and outputs of Temporal are UTC, then Perl
is using UTC, not TAI. Is it TAI internally?
Only the time scale which is approved by the ITU-R for use in radio
broadcasts has any international backing.
To add to Daniel's comment.
Lets recast the time/date discussion in another way.
The way times and dates are quoted (human time) depends on:
- religion denomination: the Jewish, Muslim, and Bahai religions have
their own calendars as part of their religions; Orthodox and Catholic
(including
On Feb 19, 10:30 pm, la...@wall.org (Larry Wall) wrote:
2000 would have been a lovely epoch if only the astronomers had kept
their grubby hands off of civil time.
The astronomers might love to have the power to control something like
that, but I'm afraid that none who are alive now can take
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 06:20:22PM -0800, Steve Allen wrote:
: On Feb 19, 10:30 pm, la...@wall.org (Larry Wall) wrote:
: 2000 would have been a lovely epoch if only the astronomers had kept
: their grubby hands off of civil time.
:
: The astronomers might love to have the power to control
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:39:20AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: I just want to know what Perl 6 time zero is.
Well, there's no such thing as time 0 in Perl 6, in the sense that
Instant is more-or-less opaque. But it's currently specced to the
TAI epoch, if you force it. I could be argued into
I don't see the need for keeping UTC within a second of UT, either. I
also think the Gregorian correction is a little silly, but at least it
only rears its head 3 times in 400 years.
Still, that horse has sailed, right? Perl 6 is using TAI, and the
burden of correcting for civil time is on the
S02 says that if pressed, an Instant will numify into a count of
atomic seconds since the TAI epoch - but what is the TAI epoch? TAI
is normally expressed in the same terms as civil time - year, month,
date, hour, minute, second, fraction of second, according to the
Gregorian calendar, or else as
2000 would have been a lovely epoch if only the astronomers had kept
their grubby hands off of civil time. But no, we still have to put up
with leap seconds in civil time, for no good reason that I can discern.
We should adjust civil time once a century or so, I think. After all,
civil time is
(re subject: does it go `Ding!' when there's Stuff?)
On Feb 20, 2010, at 00:30 , Larry Wall wrote:
but an astronomer? But no, many millions of computers have to
accommodate
to the convenience of a very few people. And most computers still
don't
know how to do even that accommodation,
21 matches
Mail list logo
