Re: Noooooo... (localtime in Unix98)

[Nick Ing-Simmons <nik@tiuk.ti.com>]

M . J . T . Guy <mjtg@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>Bart Schuller <schuller@lunatech.com> wrote
>> This piece of the RISKS digest caught my eye. The "open"software website
>> won't let me in to check, unfortunately.
>> 
>> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:56:42 -0500
>> From: "John J. Francini" <francini@progress.com>
>> Subject: Unix98 localtime
>> 
>> The problem is that it's not so simple as that.  The UNIX98 standard
>> changed the localtime() function so that the year value is redefined to
>> be the "year in the current century" rather than "years since 1900".
>
>I don't know anything about UNIX98, but this looks like typical FUD
>to me.    Any system that defines localtime() like (or to be pedantic,
>struct tm) is in violation of ANSI C.     So I don't believe it.

Even it it did we could still make perl's localtime() behave like 
it is documented to behave. 

-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons <nik@tiuk.ti.com>
Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.

---

References to:

"M.J.T. Guy" <mjtg@cus.cam.ac.uk>

---

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Top&Search][Original]

---