On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 01:18:58PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote: : On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 16:33 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : > : I would assume that you would choose time 0.0 = Jan 1, 2000 at 00:00:00.0 : > : TAI (December 31, 1999 at 23:59:29.0 UTC), making the whole thing free of : > : any UTC interferences. But there is an argument for making the zero point a : > : recognizable boundary in civil time. : > That's my leaning--if I thought it might encourage the abandonment of : > civil leap seconds, I'd be glad to nail it to Jan 1, 2000, 00:00:00.0 UTC. : : If we're going with TAI, can't we just nail it to the epoch it defines, : instead?
Because I'm a megalomaniac, silly dilly. Plus I like round numbers. Not to mention the fact that it makes it really easy to calculate days since 2000, give or take a squishy leapsecond or three. But the best part is that if we abandon UTC leap seconds for civil time, we don't have to remember leap seconds going forward, only backward from 2000. But mostly because I'm a megalomaniac, and think I can change the world. Larry
