(SC22WG14.6158) (SC22WG14.6131) (SC22WG14.6130) Summary of problems with draft C9x <time.h>, and a proposed fix
Douglas.Walls at Eng.Sun.COM
Thu Sep 17 21:58:14 UTC 1998
We can do this in Santa Cruz, formally.
>From gwyn at arl.mil Thu Sep 17 13:42:50 1998
>I think we need to poll the voting members to determine whether
>anybody insists on having struct tmx in C9x. If not, since there
>has been some formal objection to it, backing out the struct tmx
>related changes seems like an appropriate way to respond to
>(adverse) public comment.
>Personally I'd rather see a completely satisfactory technical
>solution than layering on a still-not-satisfactory solution.
>Since I doubt the former can be done within the C9x schedule,
>leaving <time.h> pretty much the way it was in C89 seems proper.
More information about the tz