Jan. 12, 2024
11:57 p.m.
On 1/12/24 16:17:07, Paul Eggert via tz wrote:
On 2024-01-12 11:47, Steve Summit via tz wrote: .
I hope that, in the absence of either of these admittedly radical proposals, Posix is at least mandating tm_gmtoff, which we've long needed anyway, and which would at least make the implicit mktime call, necessitated by %s, a tractable problem.)
Yes, that's what draft POSIX is doing. . Is that draft publicly available?
But it may make things worse with a 3-way inconsistency: o TZ at time of localtime() o TZ at time of strftime() o tm_gmtoff o other fields in struct tm. ... any of which I can set from my wristwatch in struct tm. -- gil