Mark H Weaver wrote:
>patch adds the TAI-UTC tables for 1961-1971 and uses them to implement
>TAI<->UTC conversions over that time range with nanosecond accuracy.
On a quick inspection of the code, that looks good.
>I'm vaguely concerned about violating widely-held assumptions,
>e.g. that
Zefram writes:
> Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> every UTC day has
>>exactly 86400 UTC seconds,
>
> No, that's not how UTC works. There are some time scales derived from UTC
> that have exactly 86400 seconds for each UTC day, such as Markus Kuhn's
>
Zefram writes:
> Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>Having said all of this, I should admit that I'm not an expert on time
>>standards,
>
> I am.
Okay, you claim to be one, and maybe you're right, but I've also done a
great deal of research on this recently and in the past, and I'm not yet
convinced.
If yo
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 6:03 AM Zefram wrote:
Mark H Weaver wrote:
>
> No, that's not how UTC works.
Everything Zefram says is what I was trying to say and failing.
I would only add that:
1) TAI-UTC refers to broken-down time, not to the count
of seconds since some epoch. TAI-UTC is currently
Mark H Weaver wrote:
>You seem to be assuming that SRFI-19 durations should _always_ represent
>intervals of TAI time.
No, that is not my position. Although SRFI-19 isn't entirely explicit
on this point, it is in the nature of the problem space that a duration
may be measured on any time scale, a
