System.Time.Clock Design Issues

[Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk]

Aaron Denney <wnoise at ofb.net> writes:

>> It's not clear what POSIX should have done.
>
> Yes, it is.  Monotonic consistently scaled time is far more important
> than future conversions to UTC.

"Future" becomes "past" as time passes. IMHO it's more important to
have rules which don't change every few months than to have a uniform
clock speed.

The choice "let time_t represent TAI" would not have been a viable
alternative for POSIX without introducing some machinery for
maintaining the leap second table, because people use local time
which is derived from UTC for displaying the time.

-- 
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak at knm.org.pl
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/