Re: 1/1/1970

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Lance Kibblewhite (lance@eco.twg.com)
Date: 03/18/97-11:49:49 AM Z


Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970318094948.009048c0@vishnu.eco.twg.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:49:49 -0800
From: Lance Kibblewhite <lance@eco.twg.com>
Subject: Re: 1/1/1970

If 2106 is too soon, then why not change the format from two 32 bit values
to a single 64 unsigned value.  With a 1970 base, this then ranges out to
around 2554.

To represent even older dates, the base could be moved back.

1601 gives a range out to 2185. for instance.

We could also reduce the resolution for a wider range, but some day, maybe
soon, even 1ns may be too small.

Also, remember we are talking about file date/times, not general date/time
formats.  I would be very surprised if somebody was actually overloading
the file date times to mean something application specific. It does seem,
from an application point from of view, that this would be very unreliable.


-- Lance


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:45:32 AM Z CST