Anybody involved with ISO C standardization ?

[Harti Brandt]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Stefan Bethke wrote:

SB>Am 21.01.2005 um 19:18 schrieb Poul-Henning Kamp:
SB>
SB>> In message <41F14659.8040003 at mac.com>, Chuck Swiger writes:
SB>> > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
SB>> > > I just read another brain-dead proposal for a new timeformat
SB>> > > which appearantly is in the ISO C queue and I would really
SB>> > > like if we can avoid having another damn mistake in that area.
SB>> > > (http://david.tribble.com/text/c0xlongtime.html)
SB>> > 
SB>> > I tried to figure out what was wrong with the proposal, and came up with
SB>> > this:
SB>> > 
SB>> > "The longtime_t type represents a system time as an integral number of
SB>> > ticks
SB>> > elaped since the beginning of the long time epoch. Each tick is two
SB>> > nanoseconds in length. The epoch begins at {AD 2001-01-01 00:00:00.000
SB>> > Z}.
SB>> > 
SB>> > Long time values represent dates across the range of {AD 1601-01-01
SB>> > 00:00:00
SB>> > Z} to {AD 2401-01-01 00:00:00 Z} within the proleptic Gregorian
SB>> > calendar."
SB>> 
SB>> Lets take just the two worst mistakes:
SB>
SB>Maybe the author of these proposals hasn't had the opportunity to enjoy
SB>Calendrical Calculations by Reingold and Dershowitz. (Their homepage is at
SB>http://emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/index.shtml)

You should really take over this discussion to comp.std.c. There was a 
loooong discussion about this proposal two or three months ago. There 
seems to be one or two people on that list with time background. The 
author of the proposal also asked for comments, so you are free to feed 
them either directly to him or through c.s.c.

harti