Scheme language standardization process
On 11/27/2010 06:17 PM, Ray Dillinger wrote: > If we treat the cesium standard as the preferred unit for seconds, > then we are true to the SI standard for seconds, but there are two > downsides. ... The major one is that > we cannot get the local time corresponding to a numbered second > more than a year in the future, nor the numbered second corresponding > to a specified date and time more than a year in the future. I can imagine wanting seconds to have a fixed length, and wanting to correct for leap-seconds when dealing with times in the past or immediate future (e.g. when setting a timer to record a program tomorrow). I can't imagine needing second-level precision for times more than a year in the future. E.g. if I set an alarm to go off 2 years in the future, I'm willing to risk that it rings a second or two later or earlier than expected. (If the alarm is set to go off at a specific time, the duration might be longer than expected. If the alarm is set for a specific number of seconds, then it might go off at an earlier time than expected.) As long as the specification is clear, I think that is OK. -- --Per Bothner per@x http://per.bothner.com/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@x http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss