Sept. 6, 2013
2:31 p.m.
Zefram wrote:
If zic is to retain the logic for the 400 year hack, it ought to be the robustified form of the hack.
Fair enough. But then I have a question about the change. It increases the window from 400 to 402 years. Is that part of the change needed? As I understand it, it's to avoid coalescing (say) a 399-year run of a rule to an adjacent one-off that *happens* to look like the extension of the rule. But is there really any harm to that? Such coalescing is what we already do, when preparing the input data.