(SC22WG14.6130) Summary of problems with draft C9x <time.h>, and a proposed fix
Antoine.Leca at renault.fr
Tue Sep 15 09:22:42 UTC 1998
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Also, Clive Feather [...] has proposed that a new <time.h>
> section be written to address these problems. I welcome this
> proposal, and would like to contribute. However, I believe that it's
> too late in the standardization process to introduce major
> improvements to <time.h>, as there will be insufficient time to gain
> implementation experience with these changes, experience that is
> needed for proper review.
I also think it may be too late for incorporating huge changes
in the time functions, as Clive lastly proposed.
I am also reluctant to introduce such changes *after* the FCD
stage (correct me if I am wrong, but I see it as contrary to
what a FCD should be, and it may raise virulent formal
objections later, at FDIS stage).
> Instead, I propose that <time.h>'s problems be fixed by removing the
> struct-tmx-related changes to <time.h>, reverting to the the current
> ISO C standard (C89); we can then come up with a better <time.h> for
> the next standard (C0x).
Another way may be to back up to C90 state, as Paul proposed, and then
to publish the output of the experts working in this area in the form
of an amendment to the standard, to be published around 2002-2003
(to be compared with 2010 for C0X).
Is it practicable? John?
More information about the tz