From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200301192133.h0JLXIw14270@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Fix to tm2sec(). 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:43:15 +1300."
             <3E2BC4B3.12419.19E0784E@localhost> 
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:33:18 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 43fd92da-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> I'd second the strenuous objection. The 1900 base is not just a Unix 
> thing - as far as I know it's part of ANSI C. It certainly works the 
> same way in every C implementation I've used, on Mac, Windows, & VMS. 
> Even though struct Tm isn't quite the same as struct tm, I'd hate to 
> see them made even more subtly incompatible. As Doug Gwyn said the 
> other day, standards have a purpose. 

This reason I can't agree with.  Fixing all the problems that might
crop up is a lot of work, but if I want POSIX, I know where to get
it.  I don't really want POSIX, which is why I run Plan 9.

> I'd be fine with the change to make Mr Presotto's birthday day 1 (or 
> should it be day 0?) though. I believe the standard is silent on this 
> point.

Actually, it's not, but if Dave's birthday falls on a particularly
auspicious day, it could be all right.  :-)

	- Dan C.