Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[email protected]>, Chuck Harris writes: >> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >>>> Ok, that is news to me. Are you saying that (pulling a number out of >>>> the air) time_t = 21120123 could be followed by 21120123 on a year where >>>> we added a leap second? >>> Apart from the number, that is exactly what happens: The last >>> second of the (UTC) day is recycled twice. >> [...] and all of the sources I have found >> concur that time_t is the number of seconds since 1/1/1970 UTC without >> regard to leap seconds. >> >> When did this change? > > Never, that's the trouble. > > time_t is better defined as: > > d * 86400 + min(rs, 86399) > > where: > d = Number of complete days since 1970-01-01H00:00:00Z > rs = number of seconds since UTC midnight. > > Eliminating leapseconds would make it correct however.
Language is such a problem with these discussions. Your equation says exactly what I believe to be true, but your use of the word correct muddles everything for me. POSIXly correct, and unixly correct is when time_t follows your equation. Following UTC is another kind of correct: politically correct. I believe your use of the phrase "make it correct" shows your bias towards removing the leap second corrections from UTC. This is my bias as well. -Chuck Harris _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
