Dec. 8, 2017
8:26 a.m.
Michael Deckers via tz wrote:
I'm a bit surprised that it seems to be so easy to extend the input format for zic (negative SAVE values)
That's not a change to the format that zic accepts. Note the lack of zic.c patch.
unless we want to allow for negative AT values as well.
zic already does allow negative AT times. There are no examples in the database, though. zic.8 ought to be patched to make explicit that AT and SAVE have no small range limits. -zefram