Alex Shinn scripsit:

> And that code is more important than the code that assumed 1s = 1s?

From what I understand, the committee's belief was that such cases are
less common.

> You have breakage either way.

Of course.

> But even if their solution somehow didn't break any existing code,
> this is a case where the cure is worse than the disease.  The most
> important thing is representation - to unambiguously represent any
> datetime (within some granularity <= 1s, within some range).  POSIX
> monotonic time gives us no way to do this.  For me to consider a
> WG1 time proposal seriously it would need to provide a way to
> work around this.

I have added a second return value to TimeCowan's current-posix-seconds
which is 0 if this is definitely not a leap second, 1 if it is definitely
a leap second, and #f if the implementation doesn't know.  Does that
make you sufficiently happy?

--
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan@ccil.org
The Penguin shall hunt and devour all that is crufty, gnarly and
bogacious; all code which wriggles like spaghetti, or is infested with
blighting creatures, or is bound by grave and perilous Licences shall it
capture.  And in capturing shall it replicate, and in replicating shall
it document, and in documentation shall it bring freedom, serenity and
most cool froodiness to the earth and all who code therein.  --Gospel of Tux

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