Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:33:48 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anybody involved with ISO C standardization ? Message-ID: <20050121183348.GA3624@orion.daedalusnetworks.priv> In-Reply-To: <41F14659.8040003@mac.com> References: <30924.1106323869@critter.freebsd.dk> <41F14659.8040003@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2005-01-21 13:13, Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> wrote: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> I just read another brain-dead proposal for a new timeformat which >> appearantly is in the ISO C queue and I would really like if we can >> avoid having another damn mistake in that area. >> (http://david.tribble.com/text/c0xlongtime.html) > > I tried to figure out what was wrong with the proposal, and came up > with this: > > "The longtime_t type represents a system time as an integral number > of ticks elaped since the beginning of the long time epoch. Each > tick is two nanoseconds in length. The epoch begins at {AD > 2001-01-01 00:00:00.000 Z}. I don't like the name very much either. Are we also going to have longlongtime_t when 128-bit computers are more common? - Giorgos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050121183348.GA3624>