On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > True. You said that a good thing about providing TAI clock is that
> > you can easily obtain current POSIX seconds from it. Correct? My
> > argument is that you can't.
>
> The intent was that `current-posix-seconds' can be easily
> implemented in terms of `current-tai-seconds'.

So, `current-posix-seconds' are seconds since POSIX epoch, not
POSIX time as you initially phrased it? In this case, I agree.

> Other instances
> of POSIX time such as found in timestamps and timers can
> also be converted

... given an up-to-date leap second table, which isn't generally
available. Correct?

> > Now I'm confused. Will the date object internally store only TAI
> > seconds?
>
> Why are you trying so hard to put such strange words
> into my mouth?

I apologize. The source of my misreading is this:

> I'm suggesting using TAI to represent [...] a record-like
> data type for dates.

Now I see that you meant a different thing.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports