eggert at CS.UCLA.EDU
Sun Aug 1 23:49:48 UTC 2004
"Clive D.W. Feather" <clive at demon.net> writes:
> It looks like the people who turned that specification into C89 got it
> slightly wrong. But I doubt it's going to get changed now.
Can't we easily fix things by changing the standard to say that it's
implementation-specified as to whether the format uses %d or %4d for
the year? This would allow both fixed-width and and strict C89
implementations. In practice, portable programs can't assume the C89
behavior now anyway.
> It looks like the best we'll get is to have HISTORICAL and
>STANDARDIZED versions, selected at compile time.
Sorry, I don't follow this remark -- are you referring to the tz code,
or to the standard itself?
More information about the tz