Re: [9fans] silly question

[Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>]

Skip, You have a very strange sense of humour.

At the first stroke it will be ten thrree & 40 seconds.
At the first stroke it will be ten thrree & 50 seconds.
At the first stroke it will be ten four. Precisely.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:10:57 PDT Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com> wrote:
> inspired me to write discotime:
>
> % cat discotime.go
> // print the number of seconds from the dawn of Disco until the date
> in the argument
> package main
>
> import (
>     "fmt"
>     "os"
>     "time"
> )
>
> func main() {
>     for _, s := range os.Args[1:] {
>         d, err := time.Parse(time.UnixDate, s)
>         if err != nil {
>             panic(err)
>         }
>         fmt.Println(d.Unix())
>     }
> }
> % ./discotime 'Tue Aug 16 17:03:52 CDT 1977'
> 240599032
>
> to make a hammertime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_Can't_Touch_This)
> you can subtract 1990 from parsed date instead.
>
> -Skip
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:10:56 EDT erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wro
> te:
> >> > Strftime is a red herring (sorry), I can use  and "date" | getline
> >> > to generate pretty much any date string I need.
> >> >
> >> > The issue is more going the other way. tm2sec in awk is quite complex
> >> > and hids many pitfalls if you want to do it correctly.
> >> >
> >> > My problem is parsing logfiles which contain dates in the form
> >> > of date(1) / ctime(2).
> >> >
> >> > I want to graph stuff over time and so I want a monotonically incrementi
> ng
> >> > number (secs sinc 1/1/70 would be ideal). I have coded this in awk but
> >> > for one year leap years break - though not by much.
> >>
> >> if the hair is just leap years, the algorithm used by /sys/src/libc/9sys/c
> tim
> >> e.c
> >> is pretty attractive.  the idea is to just loop through the years between
> giv
> >> en
> >> and 1970, and add a day for each leap year encountered.  should be easy
> >> to do in awk.
> >
> > plan9 doesn't deal with leap seconds, right?  There've been 35
> > leap seconds since 1972 (International Atomic Time is 35
> > seconds ahead of GMT).  Though this probably doesn't matter
> > for timestamps in log files.
> >
>