On Feb 24, 6:05 am, markjr...@gmail.com ("Mark J. Reed") wrote:
> Fair enough: official TAI is only known exactly after the fact.
Does "official TAI" means what BIPM says it means, and just plain
"TAI" means whatever perl6 wants it to mean?
TAI is an achievement for technical merits, but even m
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
> Hello Mark Reed and Larry Wall
Brought back to the whole list; Larry and I were hardly the only two
folks involved in this discussion.
> On Feb 23, 6:35 am, markjr...@gmail.com ("Mark J. Reed") wrote:
>> OK, this seems to be a point of confus
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:02:02AM +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
- Time Zone, which can differ from GMT by halves of an hour.
quarter hours in at least one place (Nepal)
This doesn't affect your reasoning.
Also, time zone abbreviations are ambig
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> So why have the duration TAI-based?
>
> Simply because TAI is supposedly immutable as a scale, so it's predictable.
> Gregorian time is not immutable and timezone definitions are not anyhow
> predictable.
OK, this seems to be a point of confu
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:02:02AM +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> - Time Zone, which can differ from GMT by halves of an hour.
quarter hours in at least one place (Nepal)
This doesn't affect your reasoning.
Also, time zone abbreviations are ambiguous. PST can be
Pacific Standard Time, Pakist
To add to Daniel's comment.
Lets recast the time/date discussion in another way.
The way times and dates are quoted ("human time") depends on:
- religion & denomination: the Jewish, Muslim, and Bahai religions have
their own calendars as part of their religions; Orthodox and Catholic
(includin
On Feb 22, 2:23 pm, markjr...@gmail.com ("Mark J. Reed") wrote:
> I submit that if the inputs and outputs of Temporal are UTC, then Perl
> is using UTC, not TAI. Is it TAI internally?
Only the time scale which is approved by the ITU-R for use in radio
broadcasts has any international backing. Be
2010/2/22 Mark J. Reed
> If the interface between Perl time and human time is going to be done
> through UTC, then I don't see the point in specifying that it's TAI
> behind the scenes. Especially if you're not specifying the epoch.
> The number of seconds between two points in time in UTC is ex
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Buddha Buck wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>> The biggest difference proposed by the use of TAI is that when you ask
>> for the number of seconds between "2008-12-31T23:59:59+" and
>> "2009-01-01T00:00:00+" you'll get 2 becau
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> And my point is precisely that the spec doesn't define it because it is
> implementation and architecture dependant.
And what's the point of making it so? If you require arithmetic
results in TAI seconds, I don't see the benefit of not speci
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> The biggest difference proposed by the use of TAI is that when you ask
> for the number of seconds between "2008-12-31T23:59:59+" and
> "2009-01-01T00:00:00+" you'll get 2 because of the leap second. But
> you don't need to know how ma
Em Seg, 2010-02-22 às 13:31 -0500, Mark J. Reed escreveu:
> > I'd just like to add that Instant is not "more-or-less" opaque. It is
> > "entirely" opaque.
> Not according to S02, which says that an Instant will numify to the
> number of TAI seconds since "the TAI epoch". That's not opaque.
I'd ju
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:38:06PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
: Em Dom, 2010-02-21 às 21:09 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
: > I now see that the most important determinant of DateTimes is
: > neither the Dates nor the Times themselves, but which TZ you're in.
: > I propose renaming Temporal to TZ, so
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Dom, 2010-02-21 às 21:28 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:39:20AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> : I just want to know what Perl 6 time zero is.
>> Well, there's no such thing as time 0 in Perl 6, in the sense that
>
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Not according to S0, which says that an Instant will numify to the
^
S02.
> number of TAI seconds since "the TAI epoch". That's not opaque.
--
Mark J. Reed
Em Dom, 2010-02-21 às 21:28 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:39:20AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> : I just want to know what Perl 6 time zero is.
> Well, there's no such thing as time 0 in Perl 6, in the sense that
> Instant is more-or-less opaque.
I'd just like to add that
Em Dom, 2010-02-21 às 21:09 -0800, Larry Wall escreveu:
> I now see that the most important determinant of DateTimes is
> neither the Dates nor the Times themselves, but which TZ you're in.
> I propose renaming Temporal to TZ, so we get TZ::Date, TZ::Time, etc,
> since they're all dependent primari
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 10:39:20AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: I just want to know what Perl 6 time zero is.
Well, there's no such thing as time 0 in Perl 6, in the sense that
Instant is more-or-less opaque. But it's currently specced to the
TAI epoch, if you force it. I could be argued into 20
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 06:20:22PM -0800, Steve Allen wrote:
: On Feb 19, 10:30 pm, la...@wall.org (Larry Wall) wrote:
: > 2000 would have been a lovely epoch if only the astronomers had kept
: > their grubby hands off of civil time.
:
: The astronomers might love to have the power to control some
On Feb 19, 10:30 pm, la...@wall.org (Larry Wall) wrote:
> 2000 would have been a lovely epoch if only the astronomers had kept
> their grubby hands off of civil time.
The astronomers might love to have the power to control something like
that, but I'm afraid that none who are alive now can take cr
I don't see the need for keeping UTC within a second of UT, either. I
also think the Gregorian correction is a little silly, but at least it
only rears its head 3 times in 400 years.
Still, that horse has sailed, right? Perl 6 is using TAI, and the
burden of correcting for civil time is on the im
(re subject: does it go `Ding!' when there's Stuff?)
On Feb 20, 2010, at 00:30 , Larry Wall wrote:
but an astronomer? But no, many millions of computers have to
accommodate
to the convenience of a very few people. And most computers still
don't
know how to do even that accommodation, sinc
2000 would have been a lovely epoch if only the astronomers had kept
their grubby hands off of civil time. But no, we still have to put up
with leap seconds in civil time, for no good reason that I can discern.
We should adjust civil time once a century or so, I think. After all,
civil time is of
23 matches
Mail list logo
