On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Markus Kuhn wrote:
I am starting to get concerned that I might have wasted a lot of time while working on this, especially since I didn't get any feedback yet from the only ISO C committee member on this list.
To rephrase from a Tony Blair speech a few days ago:
Please keep in mind that you do not have the choice between the xtime you have got and the xtime you want. You have the choice between xtime and tmx.
:-)
To quote from this same list's archives, in 1987 (views may not reflect the now current views of the then participants): Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 10:00:19 cst From: seismo!cuuxb!dlm (Dennis L. Mumaugh) Message-Id: <8703101600.AA10580@cuuxb> To: elsie!tz Subject: List structure and standards making While the list has been discussing time and timezones in context of the IEEE P1003 standards committee, people have lost sight of X3J11 which is much more important and further along towards casting into concrete. (Dramatic effect) As we now talk, the concrete has been laid and is hardening. (End drama). People should get out their X3J11 Draft Proposed American Standard for Information Systems -- Programming Language C (Dated October 1, 1986). This standard is ALREADY entering the balloting process. Please turn to page 151 and following: Section 4.12 -- Date and Time. The standard ALREADY covers clock_t, time_t, struct tm (without new strings or fields!!), clock(), time(), difftime(), mktime(), asctime(), ctime(), gmtime(), localtime(), strftime(). Thus the current discussions on the whole time subject are rapidly becomming academic as the ANSI C is already spoken and the C standard is currently in the comment phase -- send a comment and proposed change of ruling. The next phase is balloting and trial use. [snip] From: seismo!munnari!basser.oz!john Message-Id: <8703121839.AA07624@seismo.CSS.GOV> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 04:54:50 EST To: cbosgd!cuuxb!dlm Cc: elsie!tz Subject: Re: List structure and standards making > Thus the current discussions on the whole time subject are > rapidly becomming academic Dennis, The discussions are certainly NOT becoming academic. There are a lot of people who just don't care what X3J11 says; who believe that X3J11 is irreparably broken, and intend to ignore it into the indefinite future. It may well be that ``the ANSI C is already spoken.'' For my money, the ANSI C is already buggered. [snip] John ``Down With ANSI C'' Mackin, Basser Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia john@basser.oz.AU (john%basser.oz@SEISMO.CSS.GOV) {seismo,hplabs,mcvax,ukc,nttlab}!munnari!basser.oz!john [snip] We seem in danger of heading the same way again. -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk