John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Vitaly Magerya scripsit:
>> My argument is this: all useful things you can do with TAI, but
>> cannot do with current-jiffy, can (and should) be done using a
>> proper date library (the one that reports 23:59:60 on leap seconds).
>> Since you can't implement such a library using only TAI (you need
>> leap second and timezone tables), and since it's problematic to
>> obtain TAI on many current systems, I argue that R7RS-small should
>> only provide a timer (current-jiffy), and R7RS-big should provide
>> a full date library.
>
> I think there is utility to providing a timestamp of modest accuracy and
> precision for applications like logging, which is why I proposed
> this procedure in the first place.

Yes, of course. But as I said, a proper date library will fulfill
these needs, probably even better (e.g. timestamps in my web server
logs are D/M/Y H:M:S, not raw seconds), and given the problems with
implementing TAI... well, my proposition is as above.

(I feel bad for wasting your time on this issue, I'll try not to
drag it for much longer).

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