I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
have Sunday as the first day of the week.
Am I missing something? How do people handle this?
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
A Bolshevik speaker promised his audience "come the revolution, we
will all eat strawberries and cream." "But I dont like strawberries
and cream," responded a listener. "Come the revolution we will *all*
eat strawberries and cream!," the Bolshevik intoned. -- Butler Shaffer
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
> first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
> have Sunday as the first day of the week.
>
> Am I missing something? How do people handle this?
Don't look at a calendar?
Gregm
Fred Gilham wrote:
> I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
> first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
> have Sunday as the first day of the week.
>
> Am I missing something? How do people handle this?
>
Jeez, Fred, RTM:
"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God
blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had
rested from all his work which God created [1] and made."
Can I get an "Amen!"?
Demon Kenny
--
Home? http://tilton-technology.com
Cells? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Cello? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cello/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:06:47 GMT, Kenny Tilton wrote:
> Fred Gilham wrote:
>> I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
>> first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
>> have Sunday as the first day of the week.
>>
>> Am I missing something? How do people handle this?
>>
> Jeez, Fred, RTM:
> "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
> rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God
> blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had
> rested from all his work which God created [1] and made."
> Can I get an "Amen!"?
How is that paragraph relevant? It doesn't even mention which day is the
seventh day.
But the fact of the matter is that according to the Old Testament, the
seventh day (the Sabbath) was Saturday, not Sunday. Making Sunday the
day of observance is entirely a Christian innovation, owing to the fact
that the Resurrection supposedly took place on a Sunday.
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
In article <············@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
Dave Seaman <·······@no.such.host> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:06:47 GMT, Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
> > Fred Gilham wrote:
> >> I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
> >> first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
> >> have Sunday as the first day of the week.
> >>
> >> Am I missing something? How do people handle this?
> >>
>
> > Jeez, Fred, RTM:
>
> > "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
> > rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God
> > blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had
> > rested from all his work which God created [1] and made."
>
> > Can I get an "Amen!"?
>
> How is that paragraph relevant? It doesn't even mention which day is the
> seventh day.
>
> But the fact of the matter is that according to the Old Testament, the
> seventh day (the Sabbath) was Saturday, not Sunday. Making Sunday the
> day of observance is entirely a Christian innovation, owing to the fact
> that the Resurrection supposedly took place on a Sunday.
Indeed. In Hebrew, Sunday is "Yom rishon", literally, "the first day".
Tuesday is "Yom sheini", the second day, and so on, until you get to
Saturday, which is just Shabbat, the only day whose name is not of the
form "the Nth day".
So not only does CL get the first day wrong, it incorrectly numbers
weekdays using a zero base.
;-)
E.
In article <·······························@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Erann Gat <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> So not only does CL get the first day wrong, it incorrectly numbers
> weekdays using a zero base.
I've always assumed that POSIX (or whatever) returns days and months
with a zero base (while day of month, hours, minutes and seconds are 1
based) because they are frequently used to index into C arrays of
strings containing the name of the day or month in question.
Well, that's how I choose to remember which are zero- and which
one-based, anyway :-)
-- Bruce
Bruce Hoult <·····@hoult.org> writes:
> In article <·······························@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> Erann Gat <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> > So not only does CL get the first day wrong, it incorrectly numbers
> > weekdays using a zero base.
>
> I've always assumed that POSIX (or whatever) returns days and months
> with a zero base (while day of month, hours, minutes and seconds are 1
> based) because they are frequently used to index into C arrays of
> strings containing the name of the day or month in question.
>
> Well, that's how I choose to remember which are zero- and which
> one-based, anyway :-)
That is what the C newbies are told. The real reason is to create
confusion. Remember, C was just a prank by Dennis Ritche and Ken
Thompson.
--
I wouldn't mind the rat race so much if it wasn't for all the damn cats.
Dave Seaman wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:06:47 GMT, Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
>
>>Fred Gilham wrote:
>>
>>>I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
>>>first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
>>>have Sunday as the first day of the week.
>>>
>>>Am I missing something? How do people handle this?
>>>
>
>
>>Jeez, Fred, RTM:
>
>
>>"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
>>rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God
>>blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had
>>rested from all his work which God created [1] and made."
>
>
>>Can I get an "Amen!"?
>
>
> How is that paragraph relevant? It doesn't even mention which day is the
> seventh day.
>
> But the fact of the matter is that according to the Old Testament, the
> seventh day (the Sabbath) was Saturday, not Sunday.
Doh! I love this NG.
:)
kenny
--
Home? http://tilton-technology.com
Cells? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Cello? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cello/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: Why is Monday day 0?
Date:
Message-ID: <8665am952l.fsf@web.de>
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>>> "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and
>>> he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3
>>> And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in
>>> it he had rested from all his work which God created [1] and made."
>>
>>>Can I get an "Amen!"?
>> How is that paragraph relevant? It doesn't even mention which day
>> is the
>> seventh day.
>> But the fact of the matter is that according to the Old Testament,
>> the
>> seventh day (the Sabbath) was Saturday, not Sunday.
>
> Doh! I love this NG.
What about making sunday "Day 4" just for the sake of being totally
unpredictable. This would end all seemingly "fact"-based discussion
and start a real philosophical one. :-)
Regards,
--
Julian Stecklina
Signed and encrypted mail welcome.
Key-Server: pgp.mit.edu Key-ID: 0xD65B2AB5
FA38 DCD3 00EC 97B8 6DD8 D7CC 35D8 8D0E D65B 2AB5
Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program
contains an ad hoc informally-specified bug-ridden
slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
- Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming
Dave Seaman wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:06:47 GMT, Kenny Tilton wrote:
>>"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
>>rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God
>>blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had
>>rested from all his work which God created [1] and made."
>
>>Can I get an "Amen!"?
>
> How is that paragraph relevant? It doesn't even mention which day is the
> seventh day.
It's a pity that God wasn't there at that ISO meeting. That would have
settled it once and for all.
Pascal
--
1st European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
June 13 - Oslo, Norway - co-located with ECOOP 2004
http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp-ecoop/
On 2004-05-21 17:52:58 -0400, Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> said:
> It's a pity that God wasn't there at that ISO meeting. That would have
> settled it once and for all.
Well, as long as there were two or more gathered at the ISO meeting, he
was there in the midst of them.
;^)
Raf
In article
<····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitdotmaccom>,
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> wrote:
> On 2004-05-21 17:52:58 -0400, Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> said:
>
> > It's a pity that God wasn't there at that ISO meeting. That would have
> > settled it once and for all.
>
> Well, as long as there were two or more gathered at the ISO meeting, he
> was there in the midst of them.
But does he have a vote?
--
Barry Margolin, ······@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Barry Margolin <······@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> In article
> <····································@pasdespamsilvousplaitdotmaccom>,
> Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> wrote:
>> Well, as long as there were two or more gathered at the ISO meeting, he
>> was there in the midst of them.
>
> But does he have a vote?
Probably not. He hadn't been paying His membership dues, so he was
stripped of his voting rights and duly ignored.
Christophe
--
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
On 2004-05-22 05:51:33 -0400, Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> said:
> Probably not. He hadn't been paying His membership dues, so he was
> stripped of his voting rights and duly ignored.
I would say that being scourged and crucified constitues "paying one's
dues," wouldn't you?
;^)
Or...
Maybe he was taking this whole "sell all you posess and give it to the
poor" thing way to seriously."
;^)
Raf
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
> On 2004-05-22 05:51:33 -0400, Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> said:
>
> > Probably not. He hadn't been paying His membership dues, so he was
> > stripped of his voting rights and duly ignored.
>
> I would say that being scourged and crucified constitues "paying one's
> dues," wouldn't you?
I'm afraid you'll find the ISO doesn't consider that satisfactory
payment of membership dues, but as the saying goes, "it never hurts to
try".
······@nordebo.com writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-dot-mac.com> writes:
>
> > On 2004-05-22 05:51:33 -0400, Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> said:
> >
> > > Probably not. He hadn't been paying His membership dues, so he was
> > > stripped of his voting rights and duly ignored.
> >
> > I would say that being scourged and crucified constitues "paying one's
> > dues," wouldn't you?
>
> I'm afraid you'll find the ISO doesn't consider that satisfactory
> payment of membership dues, but as the saying goes, "it never hurts to
> try".
I think that in this particular case, hurt is exactly what it did.
On the other hand, it is possible that he had something in mind
other than membership of the appropriate ISO committee.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Fred Gilham wrote:
> > I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
> > first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
> > have Sunday as the first day of the week.
> >
> > Am I missing something? How do people handle this?
> >
>
> Jeez, Fred, RTM:
>
> "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
> rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God
> blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had
> rested from all his work which God created [1] and made."
>
> Can I get an "Amen!"?
>
> Demon Kenny
I was trying to avoid dealing with the theological implications. What
I found more perplexing was that an American standard (ANSI) should
adopt a European convention in opposition to the usual American
practice.
I'm an isolationist. I believe the US should have stayed out of WWI
and the Spanish American war was an abomination. 1/2 :-)
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
A Bolshevik speaker promised his audience "come the revolution, we
will all eat strawberries and cream." "But I dont like strawberries
and cream," responded a listener. "Come the revolution we will *all*
eat strawberries and cream!," the Bolshevik intoned. -- Butler Shaffer
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> I was trying to avoid dealing with the theological implications. What
> I found more perplexing was that an American standard (ANSI) should
> adopt a European convention in opposition to the usual American
> practice.
It's /traditionally/ American to start the day on Sunday, but for
business purposes, even in this country we start the week on Monday.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
>
> > I was trying to avoid dealing with the theological implications. What
> > I found more perplexing was that an American standard (ANSI) should
> > adopt a European convention in opposition to the usual American
> > practice.
>
> It's /traditionally/ American to start the day on Sunday, but for
> business purposes, even in this country we start the week on Monday.
I think it is also ANSI practice to asign monday to 0. Look at the tm
struct in ANSI C (although that does predate ANSI C).
As for the deal with the calendars, the explaination is simple. By
seperating saturday and sunday on the calender to put the working days
in the middle, the weekends look non-contiguous. This makes it easier
for employers to ask you to come in on a saturday.
--
I wouldn't mind the rat race so much if it wasn't for all the damn cats.
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> ···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> >
> > > I was trying to avoid dealing with the theological implications. What
> > > I found more perplexing was that an American standard (ANSI) should
> > > adopt a European convention in opposition to the usual American
> > > practice.
> >
> > It's /traditionally/ American to start the day on Sunday, but for
> > business purposes, even in this country we start the week on Monday.
>
> I think it is also ANSI practice to asign monday to 0. Look at the tm
> struct in ANSI C (although that does predate ANSI C).
Hmm, I'd think that's more of an effect (of standardizing pre-existing
practice) than a cause.
> As for the deal with the calendars, the explaination is simple. By
> seperating saturday and sunday on the calender to put the working days
> in the middle, the weekends look non-contiguous. This makes it easier
> for employers to ask you to come in on a saturday.
I'm pretty sure the convention of starting the week with Sunday is
purely traditional and religious; everywhere I've ever worked, work
schedules and commercial calendars all started the week with Monday.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> It's /traditionally/ American to start the day on Sunday, but for
I thought days started at 00:00:00 and ended on 23:59:59.
(Except for leap seconds of course.)
--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
"David Magda" <··················@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote in message
···················@number6.magda.ca...
> ···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > It's /traditionally/ American to start the day on Sunday, but for
>
> I thought days started at 00:00:00 and ended on 23:59:59.
And what happens between 23:59:59 and 00:00:00 the next day? That's alot of
CPU cycles! :)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "David Magda" <··················@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote in message
> ···················@number6.magda.ca...
> > ···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> >
> > > It's /traditionally/ American to start the day on Sunday, but for
> >
> > I thought days started at 00:00:00 and ended on 23:59:59.
>
> And what happens between 23:59:59 and 00:00:00 the next day? That's alot of
> CPU cycles! :)
Well, 24:00:00 on day N is the same instant as 00:00:00 on day
N+1. I'll leave 23:59:60 as an exercise for the reader.
//Ingvar
--
(defun m (f)
(let ((db (make-hash-table :test #'equal)))
#'(lambda (&rest a)
(or (gethash a db) (setf (gethash a db) (apply f a))))))
Ingvar <······@hexapodia.net> writes:
> Well, 24:00:00 on day N is the same instant as 00:00:00 on day
> N+1. I'll leave 23:59:60 as an exercise for the reader.
Is that what they mean by time aliasing? Dithering with the clock
can't be a good thing.
--
I wouldn't mind the rat race so much if it wasn't for all the damn cats.
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> Ingvar <······@hexapodia.net> writes:
>
> > Well, 24:00:00 on day N is the same instant as 00:00:00 on day
> > N+1. I'll leave 23:59:60 as an exercise for the reader.
>
> Is that what they mean by time aliasing? Dithering with the clock
> can't be a good thing.
Erm, qouldn't know. Depending on exactly what you want to do, the
instant "midnight" makes sense either as a delimiter for the previous
day or for the following day (or both) and it thus has two notations.
23:59:60 only exists on a day with a leap second and is thus, to the
best of my understanding, never the same as either 24:00:00 or
00:00:00.
//Ingvar
--
Self-referencing
Five, seven, five syllables
This haiku contains
Hello!
Ingvar <······@hexapodia.net> wrote:
>[...]
>Well, 24:00:00 on day N is the same instant as 00:00:00 on day
>N+1. I'll leave 23:59:60 as an exercise for the reader.
Depends on whether there's a leap second inserted (then 23:59:60
not equal to 00:00:00 next day).
Does Lisp (as in ANSI, of course) reflect leap seconds at all?
Kind regards,
Hannah.
······@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter) writes:
> Hello!
>
> Ingvar <······@hexapodia.net> wrote:
>>[...]
>
>>Well, 24:00:00 on day N is the same instant as 00:00:00 on day
>>N+1. I'll leave 23:59:60 as an exercise for the reader.
>
> Depends on whether there's a leap second inserted (then 23:59:60
> not equal to 00:00:00 next day).
>
> Does Lisp (as in ANSI, of course) reflect leap seconds at all?
Section 25.1.4.2 says:
``Universal time is an absolute time represented as a single
non-negative integer---the number of seconds since midnight, January
1, 1900 GMT (ignoring leap seconds).''
Since there have been 22 leap seconds added since the practice was
begun in 1972, I guess that a `conforming' lisp implementation ought
to seem slow by 22 seconds!
In article <············@ccs.neu.edu>, Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu>
wrote:
> ······@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter) writes:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Ingvar <······@hexapodia.net> wrote:
> >>[...]
> >
> >>Well, 24:00:00 on day N is the same instant as 00:00:00 on day
> >>N+1. I'll leave 23:59:60 as an exercise for the reader.
> >
> > Depends on whether there's a leap second inserted (then 23:59:60
> > not equal to 00:00:00 next day).
> >
> > Does Lisp (as in ANSI, of course) reflect leap seconds at all?
>
> Section 25.1.4.2 says:
> ``Universal time is an absolute time represented as a single
> non-negative integer---the number of seconds since midnight, January
> 1, 1900 GMT (ignoring leap seconds).''
>
> Since there have been 22 leap seconds added since the practice was
> begun in 1972, I guess that a `conforming' lisp implementation ought
> to seem slow by 22 seconds!
That's actually an interesting issue. When you ask for the current time
as a universal time, it presumably gets it from the OS, so it depends on
whether the system's time includes leap seconds; I wouldn't expect a CL
implementation to go out of its way to subtract the leap seconds off
(and if the system operator just sets the system clock from his watch,
it's unlikely that the time is accurate enough that this is even
significant). But when you use ENCODE/DECODE-UNIVERSAL-TIME, the
conversion formula is supposed to ignore leap seconds.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Joe Marshall wrote:
> ······@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter) writes:
>
>
>>Hello!
>>
>>Ingvar <······@hexapodia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>
>>>Well, 24:00:00 on day N is the same instant as 00:00:00 on day
>>>N+1. I'll leave 23:59:60 as an exercise for the reader.
>>
>>Depends on whether there's a leap second inserted (then 23:59:60
>>not equal to 00:00:00 next day).
>>
>>Does Lisp (as in ANSI, of course) reflect leap seconds at all?
>
>
> Section 25.1.4.2 says:
> ``Universal time is an absolute time represented as a single
> non-negative integer---the number of seconds since midnight, January
> 1, 1900 GMT (ignoring leap seconds).''
>
> Since there have been 22 leap seconds added since the practice was
> begun in 1972, I guess that a `conforming' lisp implementation ought
> to seem slow by 22 seconds!
FWIW
From the linux time(2) man page:
POSIX.1 defines seconds since the Epoch as a value to be
interpreted as the number of seconds between a specified
time and the Epoch, according to a formula for conversion
from UTC equivalent to conversion on the na�ve basis that
leap seconds are ignored and all years divisible by 4 are
leap years. This value is not the same as the actual num�
ber of seconds between the time and the Epoch, because of
leap seconds and because clocks are not required to be
synchronised to a standard reference. The intention is
that the interpretation of seconds since the Epoch values
be consistent; see POSIX.1 Annex B 2.2.2 for further
rationale.
-Antony
Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| From the linux time(2) man page:
| POSIX.1 defines seconds since the Epoch as a value to be
| interpreted as the number of seconds between a specified
| time and the Epoch, according to a formula for conversion
| from UTC equivalent to conversion on the na�ve basis that
| leap seconds are ignored and all years divisible by 4 are
| leap years.
+---------------
Which means that *POSIX HAS A Y2K BUG!!*
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Oops! I just wrote:
+---------------
| Antony Sequeira <·············@hotmail.com> wrote:
| +---------------
| | From the linux time(2) man page:
| | POSIX.1 ... all years divisible by 4 are leap years.
| +---------------
|
| Which means that *POSIX HAS A Y2K BUG!!*
+---------------
(*blush!*) What a ghastly typo/brain-fart. Sorry 'bout that.
What I meant was of course this:
Which means that *POSIX HAS A Y2100 BUG!!*
And of course the Y2038 bug will strike first, anyway.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> Since there have been 22 leap seconds added since the practice was
> begun in 1972, I guess that a `conforming' lisp implementation ought
> to seem slow by 22 seconds!
So Lisp is slow after all.
I thought my time problems were sorted once I started using NTP.
--
I wouldn't mind the rat race so much if it wasn't for all the damn cats.
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>
> > Since there have been 22 leap seconds added since the practice was
> > begun in 1972, I guess that a `conforming' lisp implementation ought
> > to seem slow by 22 seconds!
>
> So Lisp is slow after all.
Yeah, but only by half a minute since the early 70s -- think of it as
one extra reboot in 30 years. And we can console ourselves that by
the 2040s when we're up to a full minute, C will have had its buffer
overrun.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>
>> Since there have been 22 leap seconds added since the practice was
>> begun in 1972, I guess that a `conforming' lisp implementation ought
>> to seem slow by 22 seconds!
>
> So Lisp is slow after all.
>
> I thought my time problems were sorted once I started using NTP.
I think this is the other way round... since Lisp has "lost"
the 22 leap seconds, it's actually ahead of it's time. I'm a bit
surprised that it's only 22 seconds, though.
--
Raymond Wiker Mail: ·············@fast.no
Senior Software Engineer Web: http://www.fast.no/
Fast Search & Transfer ASA Phone: +47 23 01 11 60
P.O. Box 1677 Vika Fax: +47 35 54 87 99
NO-0120 Oslo, NORWAY Mob: +47 48 01 11 60
Try FAST Search: http://alltheweb.com/
Hannah Schroeter <······@schlund.de> wrote:
+---------------
| Does Lisp (as in ANSI, of course) reflect leap seconds at all?
+---------------
No. See CLHS "25.1.4.2 Universal Time":
Universal time is an absolute time represented as a single
non-negative integer---the number of seconds since midnight,
January 1, 1900 GMT (ignoring leap seconds).
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
>
>
>>I was trying to avoid dealing with the theological implications. What
>>I found more perplexing was that an American standard (ANSI) should
>>adopt a European convention in opposition to the usual American
>>practice.
>
>
> It's /traditionally/ American to start the day on Sunday, but for
> business purposes, even in this country we start the week on Monday.
>
And who started with this tradition? The "first" americans, the indians?
I mean, america is populated to a big part with people who originally
came from europe. So either some hundred years ago in europe we counted
wrong (starting with sunday) and corrected it to the real begin of the
week when already enough europeans moved to america to start there a
tradition...
Andr�
--
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>Fred Gilham wrote:
>> I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
>> first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
>> have Sunday as the first day of the week.
>>
>> Am I missing something? How do people handle this?
>>
>Jeez, Fred, RTM:
>"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
>rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God
>blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had
>rested from all his work which God created [1] and made."
That was on saturday, the sabbat; not on sunday.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
On 21 May 2004 13:17:40 -0700, Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote:
> I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
> first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
> have Sunday as the first day of the week.
That's the ISO standard. It's also how it's handled in most European
countries. (All? Don't know about the UK... :)
> Am I missing something? How do people handle this?
I just leave it like it is... :)
Edi.
In article <·················@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>,
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote:
> I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
> first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
> have Sunday as the first day of the week.
Not in Europe. Here in Germany for example the week starts
with monday.
>
> Am I missing something? How do people handle this?
By simple arithmetic?
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote:
>
> I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
> first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
> have Sunday as the first day of the week.
Only if you limit your "most" to "most calendars in the US of A".
Calendars in at least europe usually start on monday.
> Am I missing something?
Yes. There are funny american habits and there are ISO standards ;-)
Starting the week with monday is european (and AFAIK ISO) standard, so
it is correct for Common Lisp to follow this.
> How do people handle this?
Very basic arithmetic should suffice to fit your needs.
Regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Fred Gilham wrote:
> I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
> first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
> have Sunday as the first day of the week.
For reason of consistency: Monday is day 0 because Tuesday is day 1.
"Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<·····················@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
> Fred Gilham wrote:
> > I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
> > first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
> > have Sunday as the first day of the week.
>
> For reason of consistency: Monday is day 0 because Tuesday is day 1.
But Erann Gat just told us that "Tuesday is "Yom sheini", the second day,"
Reini Urban wrote:
> "Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<·····················@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>>Fred Gilham wrote:
>>
>>>I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
>>>first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
>>>have Sunday as the first day of the week.
>>
>>For reason of consistency: Monday is day 0 because Tuesday is day 1.
>
>
> But Erann Gat just told us that "Tuesday is "Yom sheini", the second day,"
What do you expect of a programmer? Classic off-by-one error. Yom Sheini
is Monday, Tuesday is Yom Slishi.
:)
kenny
--
Home? http://tilton-technology.com
Cells? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Cello? http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cello/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Your Project Here! http://alu.cliki.net/Industry%20Application
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> I am wondering why GET-DECODED-TIME is specified to make Monday the
> first day of the week. This is inconvenient, since most calendars
> have Sunday as the first day of the week.
>
> Am I missing something? How do people handle this?
Yes, at least two things:
- Sunday as the first day of the week is a USA-ian idea (maybe originaly
jewish, as some people have mentioned).
- Most of the world is not in the USA.
Eval, and apply normal means of deduction to produce a handle-function :)
--
Oyvin
On 2004-05-22 15:33:12, Oyvin Halfdan Thuv wrote:
> - Most of the world is not in the USA.
ANSI Common Lisp doesn't seem to care much about that.
From: Julian Stecklina
Subject: Re: Why is Monday day 0?
Date:
Message-ID: <86y8ni7q80.fsf@web.de>
Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> writes:
> On 2004-05-22 15:33:12, Oyvin Halfdan Thuv wrote:
>
>> - Most of the world is not in the USA.
>
> ANSI Common Lisp doesn't seem to care much about that.
Where?
Regards,
--
Julian Stecklina
Signed and encrypted mail welcome.
Key-Server: pgp.mit.edu Key-ID: 0xD65B2AB5
FA38 DCD3 00EC 97B8 6DD8 D7CC 35D8 8D0E D65B 2AB5
Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program
contains an ad hoc informally-specified bug-ridden
slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
- Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming
On 2004-05-24 00:06:55, Julian Stecklina wrote:
> Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> writes:
>> On 2004-05-22 15:33:12, Oyvin Halfdan Thuv wrote:
>>> - Most of the world is not in the USA.
>>
>> ANSI Common Lisp doesn't seem to care much about that.
>
> Where?
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_y_or_n.htm
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/22_cba.htm
...
Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> writes:
> On 2004-05-24 00:06:55, Julian Stecklina wrote:
>> Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> writes:
>>> On 2004-05-22 15:33:12, Oyvin Halfdan Thuv wrote:
>>>> - Most of the world is not in the USA.
>>>
>>> ANSI Common Lisp doesn't seem to care much about that.
>>
>> Where?
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_y_or_n.htm
The standard doesn't specify what the response should be. If an
implementation accepted "Nein" for "No" and "Klaato Barada Niktoo" for
"Yes", then that'd be compliant.
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/22_cba.htm
Well, you have more of a point here, but the English-speaking world
is lot bigger than the US.
Keep searching.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
·····@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <·····@gnus.org> writes:
[...]
> implementation accepted "Nein" for "No" and "Klaato Barada Niktoo"
[...]
Geez! It's "Klaatu Barada Nikto". Can't you get anything right?
^^^ ^^^
:>
--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> wrote:
> On 2004-05-24 00:06:55, Julian Stecklina wrote:
>> Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> writes:
>>> On 2004-05-22 15:33:12, Oyvin Halfdan Thuv wrote:
>>>> - Most of the world is not in the USA.
>>>
>>> ANSI Common Lisp doesn't seem to care much about that.
>>
>> Where?
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_y_or_n.htm
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/22_cba.htm
It uses english, fine. The USA is only a small subset of the english
speaking world.
Regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
On 2004-05-24 01:05:25 -0400, Alexander Schreiber
<···@usenet.thangorodrim.de> said:
>> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_y_or_n.htm
>> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/22_cba.htm
>
> It uses english, fine. The USA is only a small subset of the english
> speaking world.
It's worth reading the mission statement of ANSI:
"The Institute's mission is to enhance both the global competitiveness
of U.S. business and the U.S. quality of life by promoting and
facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment
systems, and safeguarding their integrity."
ANSI exists to promote standards that favor the U.S., not standards
that favor some generic English speaking world. It would be a
misinterpretation of ANSI's mission statement to believe that ANSI
standards are meant to promulgate some hybrid of the numerous dialects
of English. Rather, ANSI standards seek to promote U.S. interests,
which means, U.S. English.
We've been round this block before on c.l.l. See:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ansi+raffael+cavallaro&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=aeb7ff58.0401231013.585e7eb8%40posting.google.com&rnum=2>
If
If one wants a non-US centric lisp, there are EuLisp and ISLISP.
Just to reiterate what I wrote in a previous post, this is merely a
portability issue, *not* a political issue. If people read the standard
as meaning any dialect of English, as opposed to U.S. english, various
bits of otherwise portable code will break. Nothing earth shattering
mind you, but there's little point in having a standard that's so vague
as to be meaningless. If you doubt this latter part, (the "so vague as
to be meaningless" bit) please first survey the wide range of English
dialects, from the U.K., to Africa, Australia, U.S., etc., first. Some
are mutually unintelligible. Remember, _The Harder They Come_ was a
film in English (Jamaican dialect), that had to be released with U.S.
English subtitles in the U.S., as most U.S. audiences could not
understand the dialog.
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070155/>
On 2004-05-25 03:53:20, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> Remember, _The Harder They Come_ was a
> film in English (Jamaican dialect), that had to be released with U.S.
> English subtitles in the U.S., as most U.S. audiences could not
> understand the dialog.
> <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070155/>
And "Mad Max" <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079501/> was dubbed for
the US release. :-)
Oyvin Halfdan Thuv <·····@remove.spam.oyvins.net> wrote in message news:<··············@apollo.orakel.ntnu.no>...
> - Sunday as the first day of the week is a USA-ian idea (maybe originaly
> jewish, as some people have mentioned).
This isn't true. In the UK, diaries and so on would traditionally run
Sunday to Saturday. Starting them on Monday is a pretty new-fangled
thing. It's still reasonably common to find diaries and so on which
start on Sunday, although they are, unfortunately, becoming less
common. 100 years ago I doubt if you'd have found many which started
on Monday.
--tim