Re: Defect in XSH asctime()

["Clive D.W. Feather" <yyyyy@xxxxxxxxx>]

Pascal J.Bourguignon said:
> 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!

Wrong.

The year that Christ is deemed to have been born - *not* the year that
follows it - is the year A.D.1. The year immediately preceding it is 1 B.C.
"Anno Domini" is an "era" type system that starts with the year of the
defining event.

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

There are reasons to believe that the actual year was either 1 B.C. or
A.D.1. It depends on which eclipse you take as being the significant one.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <yyyyy@xxxxxxxxx>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxx>  | *** NOTE CHANGE ***
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646