On 27.06.24 02:34, David Rowley wrote:
For the special timestamp stuff, that place is probably the special timestamp table in [1]. It looks like the large caution you added in 540849814 might not be enough or perhaps wasn't done soon enough to catch the people who read that part of the manual before the caution was added. Hard to fix if it's the latter without a time machine. :-(
Maybe we should really be thinking about deprecating these special values and steering users more urgently toward more robust alternatives.
Imagine if 'random' were a valid input value for numeric types.
