> This used to be a POSIX thing; however, with its alignment to C99
> the double leap second was disposed of in the 2001 edition.

Ok. Well (IMHO) it needs to be fixed then.

Regards,
Onno


On 9/9/05, Klaus Klein <kleink@mibh.de> wrote:
> Onno Ebbinge wrote:
> > Because Time and Dates can be a real pain I often use the following res=
ource:
> >
> > The Best of Dates, The Worst Of Dates:    (by Gilbert Healton)
> > http://www.exit109.com/~ghealton/y2k/yrexamples.html
> >
> > The Best of Dates, The Worst Of Dates: Leap Seconds and UTC
> > http://www.exit109.com/~ghealton/y2k/yrexamples.html#_History.Leap
> >
> > NIST Time Scale Data Archive
> > http://tf.nist.gov/pubs/bulletin/leapsecond.htm
> >
> > No mention of a 61st second (two positive leap seconds) anywhere...
> > If nobody can come up with a reason it should be patched.
>=20
> This used to be a POSIX thing; however, with its alignment to C99
> the double leap second was disposed of in the 2001 edition.
>=20
>=20
> - Klaus
>