Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!bu-cs!encore!banyan!gil
From: gil@banyan.UUCP (Gil Pilz@Eng@Banyan)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Daylight Savings Time, Leap Years, ctime, and date
Message-ID: <415@banyan.UUCP>
Date: 1 May 89 21:16:33 GMT
References: <1006@necis.UUCP> <489@lakart.UUCP> <1918@edison.GE.COM> <1937@csuna.csun.edu>
Reply-To: gil@banyan.com (Delbert de la Platz)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Banyan Systems, Inc.
Lines: 25

In article <1937@csuna.csun.edu> abcscnge@csuna.csun.edu (Scott Neugroschl) writes:
>In article <1918@edison.GE.COM> rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes:
>>
>> From article <1006@necis.UUCP>, by adamm@necis.UUCP (Adam Moskowitz):
>> >   2) Does anyone know if the new versions are less naive about determining
>> >      leap years? It seems the current routines only use the "year % 4 ==0"
>> >      rule.
>> 
>>Fixed by POSIX as I recall.  (POSIX == IEEE 1003.1 standard in this case).
>
>While I like Unix as much as the NeXT guy (pun intended), does anyone in
>this group REALLY believe that it will still be around in the year 2100?
>Come on, guys, and get a clue!!!!!!!

You misunderstand. UNIX may not be around in the year 2100 but there
are virtual-time implementations of UNIX that have the ability to act
_as_ _if_ _it_ _where_ 2100 and these need to worry about leapyears
etc. Now granted, the usual use of a virtual-time machine is to
operate in past-mode virtual-time (thus enabling you to get those
critical projects done on time even though it took you three weeks
longer than scheduled), it still doesn't make sense to cut corners in
such critical areas.
                                                          Delbert de la Platz @
                                            The Society for Right Justification
                                                               (gil@banyan.com)