"M. Warner Losh" wrote on 2006-01-09 16:57 UTC:
> There's been many many many people that have tried to fix POSIX time_t.
One person's "fix" is another person's "recipe for disaster" ...
The POSIX definition of time_t is not quite as broken as some
individuals would like you to believe. It actually does its job very
well, especially out there in the real world, where UTC is easily and
reliably available from many, many, independent channels. The same
surely could not (and probably still cannot) be said for "TAI" and for
automatic leap-second table updates. You cannot get TAI from the BBC
evening news, and you still cannot even get it reliably from your
average local NTP server.
(I know, we've already discussed this here, on tz_at_elsie, on
pasc-time-study, and on austin-group-l in *very* great detail, many,
many, many times, so I'll stop.)
Markus
--
Markus Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ || CB3 0FD, Great Britain
Received on Mon Jan 09 2006 - 11:12:34 PST