Re: time_t size: The year 2038 bug Summary:

[Erik Andersen]

On Tue Jan 11, 2000 at 05:51:34AM -0800, John Alvord wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> Rather then change the meaning of time_t, why not define an new value of
> epoch_t which is currently zero. That way software can be converted
> gradually and old software will continue to work unchanged. The
> infrastructure will use the epoch_t value to do things the right way.
> Given the recent Y2K scare, getting a label that says your software is
> 2038 compliant should be powerful marketting material in 10-15 years.
> 

I think an "epoch_t" makes a great deal of sense.

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen   Web:    http://www.xmission.com/~andersen/ 
                   email:  [e-mail]
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--