From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [9fans] Fix to tm2sec(). From: "Andrew Simmons" To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20030120065137.JFNO13460.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@[210.54.70.164]> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:49:55 +1300 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 44106464-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 >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. Actually, I was intending to refer to ANSI C, rather than POSIX - I believe they are different, although overlapping, and I was once told that it's POSIX that specifies a starting date and interval for time_t values, whereas ANSI C leaves both undefined. But even if the standards argument doesn't sway you, surely you could spare a thought for those of us (oh well, all right, just me) who are so old and senile and stupid that even 128 bit integers would not suffice to represent our age, and are consequently unable to come to terms with a zero-based number system?