Aug. 1, 2004
11:49 p.m.
"Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> writes:
It looks like the people who turned that specification into C89 got it slightly wrong. But I doubt it's going to get changed now.
Can't we easily fix things by changing the standard to say that it's implementation-specified as to whether the format uses %d or %4d for the year? This would allow both fixed-width and and strict C89 implementations. In practice, portable programs can't assume the C89 behavior now anyway.
It looks like the best we'll get is to have HISTORICAL and STANDARDIZED versions, selected at compile time.
Sorry, I don't follow this remark -- are you referring to the tz code, or to the standard itself?