[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 82, Issue 6

[Peter Vince]

I believe that is false logic: that a piece of equipment *CAN* deal
with a leap-second doesn't necessarily mean it *HAS* to have them.
That would be the same logic as: "All birds have wings, therefore
anything with wings is a bird."

F'rinstance: Google's time-slew system makes special provision when
told about the forthcoming leap-second, but will carry on perfectly
well if there aren't any.

Peter



On 10 August 2013 17:11, Finkleman, Dave <dfinkleman at agi.com> wrote:

>> There is no definitive assessment of the costs either to fix things currently broken by leap seconds or to change things now compatible If the definition of UTC is changed.   However, things now broken do not depend on the leap second whereas those that have implemented it correctly obviously do.  Why is that so hard for many to understand?

>

> DF

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> LEAPSECS mailing list

> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs