Ref.: Re: Ref.: Re: Time.local bug? 
Author Message
 Ref.: Re: Ref.: Re: Time.local bug?

Hi there,

El Fri, 03 November 2000, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng escribi

Quote:

> >  Time.local 59, 49, 5, 3, 11, 2000, 5, 308, false, "CST"# => Fri Nov 03 05:49:59 CST 2000
> >  Time.local 60, 49, 5, 3, 11, 2000, 5, 308, false, "CST"# => Fri Nov 03 05:50:00 CST 2000

> Doesn't this paragraph from RFC 1305:
> suggest that that is worng?  The time yielded should be 03 05:49:60, I
> think.  I'm no expert on this topic, though.

I agree with you... Leap seconds are real, like leap years are.. I mean, 2000-02-29 really is that, and not 2000-03-01, because this is a leap year... the same way, in a 'leap second' year, if they are inserted, they do exist as such and not representing the next second...

And returning to 24:00.... while such a time as '24:32' is recommended to be written as '00:31', '24:00' == '00:00 of the following day' is allowed and, actually, used when talking at future times... So you can talk of, eg, guard changes at 00:00, 06:00, 12:00, 18:00 and 24:00 hours every day...

See http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~mgk25/iso-time.html for a brief explanation of ISO 8601...

regards,
david

----------------------------------------------------------------------
+  Mensaje enviado gracias al correo gratuito de Desmasiado Corp.    +
+                   http://www.*-*-*.com/                       +
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:22:10 GMT  
 Ref.: Re: Ref.: Re: Time.local bug?

Quote:
> Hi there,

> El Fri, 03 November 2000, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng escribi


> > >  Time.local 59, 49, 5, 3, 11, 2000, 5, 308, false, "CST"# => Fri Nov 03 05:49:59 CST 2000
> > >  Time.local 60, 49, 5, 3, 11, 2000, 5, 308, false, "CST"# => Fri Nov 03 05:50:00 CST 2000

> > Doesn't this paragraph from RFC 1305:
> > suggest that that is worng?  The time yielded should be 03 05:49:60, I
> > think.  I'm no expert on this topic, though.

> I agree with you... Leap seconds are real, like leap years are.. I
> mean, 2000-02-29 really is that, and not 2000-03-01, because this is
> a leap year... the same way, in a 'leap second' year, if they are
> inserted, they do exist as such and not representing the next
> second...

You may be right, but it isn't a Ruby bug...

     dave[rubyweb/raa 8:39:48] date -d "Fri Nov  3 06:20:59 CST 2000"
     Fri Nov  3 06:20:59 CST 2000
     dave[rubyweb/raa 8:39:55] date -d "Fri Nov  3 06:20:60 CST 2000"
     Fri Nov  3 06:21:00 CST 2000

Dave



Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:40:54 GMT  
 Ref.: Re: Ref.: Re: Time.local bug?

Quote:

> You may be right, but it isn't a Ruby bug...

>      dave[rubyweb/raa 8:39:48] date -d "Fri Nov  3 06:20:59 CST 2000"
>      Fri Nov  3 06:20:59 CST 2000
>      dave[rubyweb/raa 8:39:55] date -d "Fri Nov  3 06:20:60 CST 2000"
>      Fri Nov  3 06:21:00 CST 2000

I'd still consider that suspect, but this is proof by "select isn't
broken".  What does date -d do with 31-DEC-2000 23:59:60 which is where
a leap second would be inserted in real life?  It might be employing
subtle checks to Do The Right Thing (by rolling over) in most cases.
We don't have -d on our date, so I cannot test this.

I certainly hope the people who write and test the date command know more
than me about this sort of thing!

Quote:

> Dave

        Hugh



Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:18:13 GMT  
 Ref.: Re: Ref.: Re: Time.local bug?
El Fri, 03 November 2000, Yukihiro Matsumoto escribi

Quote:
> A second 61 means subsequent leap second, which is something like
> urban legend.  So Ruby does not allow 61st second in the minute.
> Thanks to Tadayoshi Funaba who teaches us a lot about time and
> calendar.

Nod, I guessed that... yes, please thank him if he's not reading this mailing list...

Quote:
> |> Sorry...
> |
> |Mmmm... Are you guilty for that? If not, I don't think you should
> |feel sorry, just worried like the rest of us ;-)

> I AM guilty if there's something wrong ;-)

Yes, you are guilty... but we won't use that against you ;)

thn,
david "loving ruby more and more as time goes by..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
+  Mensaje enviado gracias al correo gratuito de Desmasiado Corp.    +
+                  http://correo.demasiado.com                       +
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:50:00 GMT  
 
 [ 4 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Leap seconds (was Ref.: Re: Ref.: Re: Ref.: Re: Time.local bug? )

2. Ref.: Re: Time.local bug?

3. App-Ref: Need to break up a large App, App-Ref can help

4. list-ref <-> vector-ref

5. GPF: Passing Local var by Ref.

6. Bug or feature : ref to decorations?

7. Cadence Openbook Verilog-XL Ref BUG.

8. error::The leftmost part-ref in a data-ref can not be a function reference.

9. Good ref for J/APL?

10. Cheap Source for APL2 GRAPHPAK Ref Man?

11. DolphinVM dll ref count not incremented?

12. looking for info ref OLD computer language thought to run on IBM

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software