Subj : Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year To : All From : Not@mail.invalid Date : Sun Jan 01 2017 04:12 pm Subject: Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year From: Mark Lloyd On 01/01/2017 12:46 PM, Wally W. wrote: [snip] > As I understand it, NT time uses a signed integer and tops out at > 0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF = in the year 30828 > > Unhappily, no sources suggest using negative integers will allow > setting the timestamp before the year 1600. What is the resolution of this clock? You get hundreds of billions of years if you count seconds since 1970. 1600 is a leap year, like 2000 and 2400. Maybe it has something to do with that. > Otherwise, timestamps could be set for any date in known history; as > in 4004 BC, which by some counts includes Day One. The PHP I use has a strange "hole", where you can't set (with mktime) a year in the range of 0-100*. IIRC earlier years can be set, but it's one off (it thinks there is a year 0). 4004 BC** would be specified as -4003. * - I think this is a "convenience" that made sense with a 32-bit time_t where it adds 2000 to 0-79 and 1900 to 80-100, both 0 and 100 become 2000. ** - I try to use CE / BCE instead of AD / BC. The numbers are the same, and it avoids a particular assumption. [snip] -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "In our sad condition, our only consolation is the expectancy of another life. Here below all is incomprehensible." [Martin Luther, Table Talk] --- ViaMAIL!/WC v2.00 * Origin: ViaMAIL! - Lightning Fast Mailer for Wildcat! (1:261/20) .