(SC22WG14.6158) (SC22WG14.6131) (SC22WG14.6130) Summary of problems with draft C9x <time.h>, and a proposed fix

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Douglas A. Gwyn (IST) said:
> 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.

I'm not happy with <time.h> as it is, but I'm a lot unhappier with the C89
version, and I don't like the proposals that Marcus Kuhn is writing either
(I need to talk to him face-to-face about this).

I would object, and would ask the UK to object, to any proposal that
removes the new functionality without a good replacement. I will try to
write this up more clearly when I find the time, but it probably won't be
in the next week.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather       | Work: <clive at linx.org>   | Tel: +44 1733 705000
Regulation Officer       |   or: <clive at demon.net>  |  or: +44 973 377646
London Internet Exchange | Home: <clive at davros.org> | Fax: +44 1733 353929
(on secondment from Demon Internet)