Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment: > It was the fact that (at least under Mac OS X) the numeric > representation assumes a 86400 second day that led me to > believe that non-SI seconds and hence a non-UTC version of Universal > Time, such as UT1 was being used.
AFAICT, Mac OSX also uses Unix time... Why do you think UT1 plays any role here? Computers *have* to use SI seconds, since they are not physically equipped to measure anything else (unless you want to get even more nit-picking and point out that the quartz in the computer is not capable of measuring SI seconds exactly). > (5) the numeric representation of time is platform-dependent This is the case. > and any one of the above may hold. This is not consequential. As it is platform dependent, it might do any of the above, plus an infinite number of additional alternatives (including bugs and whatnot). I propose to add this sentence to the explanation of the epoch: "It is platform-dependent whether or not 'seconds since the epoch' includes leap seconds. Most systems likely implement `Unix time`_" _ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time > The same documentation issue crops up in > <http://docs.python.org/library/datetime.html> and indirectly > (calendar.timegm) in <http://docs.python.org/library/calendar.html> Please, one issue at a time. I believe that this doesn't crop up, or if it does, it's a different issue. If you want to pursue this, please create a separate report, and preferably include a proposed wording. _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4775> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
