> You [...] continue to assert without evidence that correct behavior > is impossible, but the various facts remain:
Whereas _you_ continue to assert, without providing even explanation, much less justification, that certain behaviour is wrong, as in > Similarly, if I ask it to print %s, it will bring the wrong time_t > value. without explaining what is wrong with the value it prints, what value you would prefer, or why. I suspect you're talking past, rather than to, one another, failing to state assumptions because you each consider them so obvious they don't need stating, or some such. > Meanwhile we've clearly reached the point where you're wilfully > misinterpreting what I'm writing in order to dismiss it, Not "clearly" to me. I see each of you asserting that certain behaviour is right or wrong without stating your basis for considering it so, possibly excepting various forms of "it's what the spec will say" from kre. I think "correct behaviour" in the sense of "behaviour that a large majority will consider correct" *is* impossible; you're both smart and familiar with the relevant issues, and you can't seem to agree on what constitutes correct behaviour. (I'm not even sure what _I_ think is correct behaviour, given the horrid underspecified mess the struct tm interfaces are.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
