Oddness in file interpretation - I assume I am missing something...

Philip Warner pjw at rhyme.com.au
Wed Dec 6 05:44:55 UTC 2006


Paul Eggert wrote:
>> Can someone confirm that zic is doing the right thing (which I kind of
>> assume it is by definition), and perhaps give me a rule to follow when
>> performing the %s substitutions?
>>     
>
> It's doing what I wanted, anyway. 
Yep; zic is almost by definition 'right', just trying to understand it.

> I think the general rule is that, before the first transition, you use
> the first standard-time abbreviation (not the first abbreviation, the
> first standard-time abbreviation).
>
> If the zic documentation doesn't say this clearly enough for you,
> perhaps you could propose a patch?  That would help others grok it.
>   
Will do when I have it sorted out completely; but your answer was very
helpful. Looking more closely at zic, it *seems* that the rule is:

 - expand all rules (one per year)
 - Use the prior rule text if there is one
 - if no prior rule text, use the latest rule text that has MAX in its
'to' field, zero offset, and which falls inside the range of dates of
the zone line
 - if no such rule exists, use the first rule with 0 offset which is
also in the range of dates allowed by the zone line

Now my parser produces the same output as zdump, except for
riyad87/88/89. which I am fixing; once that is done, I will send some
patches.

In terms of patches; should I send a patch for the man page? Or for the
C file (or both, if I have time)?




>
>   



More information about the tz mailing list