[tz] zdump new option -i for easier-to-review output

Jon Skeet skeet at pobox.com
Mon Aug 22 17:43:43 UTC 2016

On 22 August 2016 at 18:38, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

> Jon Skeet wrote:
> Is that due to dates past 2038, or something else?
> Also dates before 1901 for 32-bit signed time_t, or before 1970 for
> unsigned time_t. I want the pre-1901 transitions to be checked, though, so
> I would rather stick with 64-bit signed time_t when generating the
> reference file.
> Plus, on some platforms zdump uses CRLF instead of LF to terminate output
> lines. There may be other niggling things like that.

Right. My own format spec
<https://github.com/nodatime/tzvalidate/blob/master/format.md> explicitly
calls out U+000A, so that's consistent with using a Unix 64-bit version of
zdump to generate the canonical file.

> I'd be testing something where time_t doesn't get involved at all, of
>> course - an entirely different, non-C-based representation. That's the
>> point of it, from my perspective.
> Something with bignums, say? (Because 64-bit signed time_t doesn't suffice
> for simulations of proton decay in degenerate stars. See:
> Adams FC. The future history of the universe. Cosmic Update. 2011-07-23.
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8294-0_3

If we still have time zones that need this sort of support in even a
thousand years time, then... well, heck, *I* won't be maintaining it :)

Given the other reactions around file merging, perhaps the data file should
just be hosted as a separate file?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/attachments/20160822/2c422b36/attachment.htm>

More information about the tz mailing list