C9x <time.h> and clock precision

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Markus Kuhn wrote:

> I am starting to get concerned that I might have wasted a lot of time
> while working on this, especially since I didn't get any feedback yet
> from the only ISO C committee member on this list.
> 
> To rephrase from a Tony Blair speech a few days ago:
> 
>   Please keep in mind that you do not have the choice between the xtime
>   you have got and the xtime you want. You have the choice between xtime
>   and tmx.
> 
> :-)

To quote from this same list's archives, in 1987 (views may not reflect
the now current views of the then participants):

	Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 10:00:19 cst
	From: seismo!cuuxb!dlm (Dennis L. Mumaugh)
	Message-Id: <8703101600.AA10580 at cuuxb>
	To: elsie!tz
	Subject: List structure and standards making

	While the list has been discussing time and timezones in  context
	of  the IEEE P1003 standards committee, people have lost sight of
	X3J11 which is much more  important  and  further  along  towards
	casting  into  concrete.  (Dramatic  effect)  As we now talk, the
	concrete has been laid and is hardening. (End drama).

	People  should  get  out  their  X3J11  Draft  Proposed  American
	Standard for Information Systems -- Programming Language C (Dated
	October  1,  1986).   This  standard  is  ALREADY  entering   the
	balloting  process.  Please  turn  to  page  151  and  following:
	Section 4.12 -- Date and Time.

	The standard ALREADY covers clock_t, time_t, struct  tm  (without
	new  strings or fields!!), clock(), time(), difftime(), mktime(),
	asctime(), ctime(), gmtime(), localtime(), strftime().

	Thus the current  discussions  on  the  whole  time  subject  are
	rapidly  becomming  academic  as the ANSI C is already spoken and
	the C standard is currently  in  the  comment  phase  --  send  a
	comment  and  proposed  change  of  ruling.  The  next  phase  is
	balloting and trial use.

[snip]

	From: seismo!munnari!basser.oz!john
	Message-Id: <8703121839.AA07624 at seismo.CSS.GOV>
	Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 04:54:50 EST
	To: cbosgd!cuuxb!dlm
	Cc: elsie!tz
	Subject: Re: List structure and standards making

	> Thus the current  discussions  on  the  whole  time  subject  are
	> rapidly  becomming  academic

	Dennis,

	The discussions are certainly NOT becoming academic.  There are a lot
	of people who just don't care what X3J11 says; who believe that X3J11
	is irreparably broken, and intend to ignore it into the indefinite
	future.  It may well be that ``the ANSI C is already spoken.''
	For my money, the ANSI C is already buggered.

[snip]

	John ``Down With ANSI C'' Mackin, Basser Department of Computer Science,
					  University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

	john at basser.oz.AU (john%basser.oz at SEISMO.CSS.GOV)
	{seismo,hplabs,mcvax,ukc,nttlab}!munnari!basser.oz!john

[snip]

We seem in danger of heading the same way again.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28 at cam.ac.uk