From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan 21 18:33:54 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62BCF16A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:33:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from kane.otenet.gr (kane.otenet.gr [195.170.0.27])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9AE43D1F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:33:53 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from keramida@freebsd.org)
Received: from orion.daedalusnetworks.priv (aris.bedc.ondsl.gr
	[62.103.39.226])j0LIXn69019105;	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:33:49 +0200
Received: by orion.daedalusnetworks.priv (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id E89BC2A475; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:33:48 +0200 (EET)
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>
Message-ID: <20050121183348.GA3624@orion.daedalusnetworks.priv>
References: <30924.1106323869@critter.freebsd.dk> <41F14659.8040003@mac.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41F14659.8040003@mac.com>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Anybody involved with ISO C standardization ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:33:54 -0000

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