Re: Defect in XSH asctime()

["Pascal J.Bourguignon" <yyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Zepeda writes:
> Yes. all current calendars start at 1 and have no 0 year. But then if 
> programmers redid the calendar we would have a year 0 the months 0-B......
> 
> So it should read "1 through 9999 inclusive"

I'd bet  that most calendars don't even  have a year 1!  (Not even the
French Revolution Calendar, which was enacted at least one year after,
in year 2).

Our calendar did not start before between 50 and 300 years after year 1.

It's as ridiculous to speak of year 1 after Christ than it is to speak
of year 0, or year -1.

On the other hand, the year  Christ is born can't be numbered one year
_after_ Christ and  can't be called one year  _before_ Christ.  If you
want to number it in a calendar based on the birth of Christ, you MUST
number it year 0!

But then, you  should renumber all following years,  we're not in 2003
but in 2010 after the birth of Christ.


Note that some "revolutionaries" of 1968 started a "Year Zero".


-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                              .  *   * . * .* .
http://www.informatimago.com/                        .   *   .   .*
There is no worse tyranny than to force             * .  . /\  ()  . *
a man to pay for what he does not                    . .  / .\   . * .
want merely because you think it                    .*.  / *  \  . .
would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein             . /*   o \     .
http://www.theadvocates.org/                        *   '''||'''   .
SCO Spam-magnet: yyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxx                 ******************