Author pr0gg3d
Recipients Alexander.Belopolsky, aht, amaury.forgeotdarc, djc, hodgestar, pr0gg3d, zooko
Date 2010-04-26.19:56:15
SpamBayes Score 0.000395284
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1272311778.24.0.223320391827.issue6280@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I thinks that isn't a so easy decision to take.

And there are some other issues, imho:

1. timegm function is not specified by any standard (POSIX). The portable way (setting TZ, calling mktime, restore TZ) is a pure hack (could not work in future multithreaded environments).
2. if we want to strictly follow the time.h definition from POSIX standards, the timegm function should be kept away from time module (as now).
3. timegm seems to have some issues on mingw32. 
4. Solaris doesn't come with the timegm function out-of-the-box.

We could give up at this point.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-04-26 19:56:18pr0gg3dsetrecipients: + pr0gg3d, zooko, amaury.forgeotdarc, djc, hodgestar, aht, Alexander.Belopolsky
2010-04-26 19:56:18pr0gg3dsetmessageid: <1272311778.24.0.223320391827.issue6280@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-04-26 19:56:16pr0gg3dlinkissue6280 messages
2010-04-26 19:56:15pr0gg3dcreate