[LEAPSECS] operational time -- What's in a name?

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <20080328170848.GA25646 at ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:

>On Fri 2008-03-28T16:04:49 +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:

>> My personal preference would be to bite the bullet and live with

>> the 128bit memory hit:

>>

>>       utc_t           64i.64f         (big enough, small enough)

>

>Whereas I am not against the notion of such, I find that nomenclature

>to be problematic, for UTC did not exist prior to 1960.


Agreed, but at least that is only a matter of educating historians
and not politicians and pedestrians.

Poul-Henning

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.