[LEAPSECS] Leap seconds ain't broken, but most implementations are broken

[John Sauter]

On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 10:56 +0000, Zefram wrote:
> 
> No, the Gregorian calendar is yet another thing that doesn't imply
> 86400-second days.  (POSIX time_t is another.)  There's a general
> pattern
> here that whenever there's some construct that counts or labels days,
> and is (as most are) silent on the fine internal structure of those
> days,
> you (Brooks) interpret it as specifying that the days consist of
> exactly
> 86400 SI seconds.  (Or atomically-realised seconds, which you do not
> distinguish from SI seconds.)  I cannot think of an occasion when you
> have drawn that inference and been correct.
> 
> -zefram

I beg to differ.  The POSIX definition of time_t (4.16 Seconds since
the Epoch) says "How any changes to the value of seconds since the
Epoch are made to align to a desired relationship with the current
actual time is implementation-defined. As represented in seconds since
the Epoch, each and every day shall be accounted for by exactly 86400
seconds."

See <http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/>.
    john Sauter (John_Sauter at systemeyesocmputerstore.com)
-- 
PGP fingerprint E24A D25B E5FE 4914 A603  49EC 7030 3EA1 9A0B 511E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20170107/64548947/attachment.pgp>