Douglas A. Gwyn (IST) said:

I think we need to poll the voting members to determine whether anybody insists on having struct tmx in C9x. If not, since there has been some formal objection to it, backing out the struct tmx related changes seems like an appropriate way to respond to (adverse) public comment.

Personally I'd rather see a completely satisfactory technical solution than layering on a still-not-satisfactory solution. Since I doubt the former can be done within the C9x schedule, leaving <time.h> pretty much the way it was in C89 seems proper.

I'm not happy with <time.h> as it is, but I'm a lot unhappier with the C89 version, and I don't like the proposals that Marcus Kuhn is writing either (I need to talk to him face-to-face about this). I would object, and would ask the UK to object, to any proposal that removes the new functionality without a good replacement. I will try to write this up more clearly when I find the time, but it probably won't be in the next week. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@linx.org> | Tel: +44 1733 705000 Regulation Officer | or: <clive@demon.net> | or: +44 973 377646 London Internet Exchange | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 1733 353929 (on secondment from Demon Internet)