Tim Jenness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 14 Aug 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Day resolution is insufficient for most purposes in all the Perl
>> scripts I've worked on. I practically never need sub-second precision;
>> I almost always need precision better than one day.
> MJD allows fractio
On 14 Aug 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Day resolution is insufficient for most purposes in all the Perl scripts
> I've worked on. I practically never need sub-second precision; I almost
> always need precision better than one day.
>
MJD allows fractional days (otherwise it would of course be us
> Yes. MacOS and VMS. (Though VMS' localtime() uses the UNIX definition,
> just to be portable.) MacOS' epoch zero is 1900 (or was it 1901?),
1904 (if it matters).
Damian
> Is Perl currently using different epochs on different platforms? If so, I
Yes. MacOS and VMS. (Though VMS' localtime() uses the UNIX definition,
just to be portable.) MacOS' epoch zero is 1900 (or was it 1901?),
VMS' epoch zero is 17-NOV-1858 00:00:00.00, for some astronomical
reason IIRC.
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Anyway, it doesn't matter; it's a lot more widely used than any other
>> epoch, and epochs are completely arbitrary anyway. What's wrong with
>> it?
> I think the "What's wrong with it?" part is the wrong approach to this
> discussion.
That's exactly
> Anyway, it doesn't matter; it's a lot more widely used than any other
> epoch, and epochs are completely arbitrary anyway. What's wrong with it?
I think the "What's wrong with it?" part is the wrong approach to this
discussion. Personally, I'm a 100% UNIX head. All I work on is UNIX
(thank hea
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:27:35PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> >
> >Inline Comments for Perl.
>
> What relationship does this have to RFC 5 (multiline comments), and
> hasn't the discussion of inline comments occurred in detail already?
Highly related. But sin
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:27:35PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>
>Inline Comments for Perl.
What relationship does this have to RFC 5 (multiline comments), and
hasn't the discussion of inline comments occurred in detail already?
K.
--
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netiz
Tim Jenness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, "seconds since 1970" is only obvious to unix systems
> programmers.
I disagree; I don't think that's been true for a while. It's certainly
familiar, if not obvious, to *any* Unix programmer (not just systems
programmers), as it's what time()
On 14 Aug 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The idea would be twofold:
>
> >1. time() would still return UNIX epoch time. However, it
> > would not be in core, and would not be the primary
> > timekeeping method. It would be in Time::Loca
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The idea would be twofold:
>1. time() would still return UNIX epoch time. However, it
> would not be in core, and would not be the primary
> timekeeping method. It would be in Time::Local for
> compatibility (along with localtime
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>1. time() would still return UNIX epoch time. However, it
> would not be in core, and would not be the primary
> timekeeping method. It would be in Time::Local for
> compatibility (along with localtime and gmtime).
>
>2. mjdate(
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 09:36:48PM -0400, Ronald J Kimball wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 09:04:41PM +0100, Paul Marquess wrote:
> > > I'm cc-ing this to p6 because there doesn't seem to be anyone left on
p5p.
> > Then who is generating all this
13 matches
Mail list logo
