[LEAPSECS] Time Synchronization in Financial markets

[Martin Burnicki]

John Sauter wrote:
> Not being a traditionalist myself, I don't feel that there is anything
> wrong with 23:59:60 as a label for a particular second.  Thus, I don't
> feel the need to map the 86,401 seconds of the last day of 2016 into
> 86,400 "holes", and therefore I do not suffer any indeterminacy.

I think for many applications the 23:59:60 labeling would not be a
problem. However, if the kernel just steps the time back to insert a
leap second, and a particular binary second number appears twice in a
sequence there is no way for most commonly used library functions to
determine that one of them is a leap second, and thus you get 23:59:59
twice instead of :59 :60.

Martin