Front page | perl.perl6.language.datetime |
Postings from August 2000
At 22:07 -0600 2000.08.15, Nathan Torkington wrote: >NOTICE: reply-to set to the -language-datetime list. > >Ted Ashton writes: >> Well then, why 1970? If we're defining our own, why buy into one >> which is scheduled to blow up in 2038? Why not at the very least >> start with Jan 1, 2K? > >This works, provided epoch seconds are stored in some form of big >integers (either arbitrary precision, or 64-bit). The epoch change >would then be fine by me. But epoch changes don't solve the 2038 >problem, Unix already tried that before the move to 32-bit integers >(they moved the epoch from 1970 to 1971, I think, when their previous >size of integer was about to run out of space, then when it ran out >again next year they said "yeah, ok, wrong solution" :-). Yeah; if you change us Macs to 1970 instead of 1904, we actually run out of time two years earlier! No thanks ... -- Chris Nandor | pudge@pobox.com | http://pudge.net/ Andover.Net | chris.nandor@andover.net | http://slashcode.com/Thread Previous