GNU bug report logs -
#17765
julian date is not what you think
Previous Next
Full log
Message #15 received at control <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
tag 17765 notabug
thanks
On 06/12/2014 01:03 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/12/2014 10:56 AM, Steve Zornes wrote:
>> the date command uses %j to specify number of days since beginning of year. It looks as though %j is meant to mean Julian day which is ACTUALLY the number of days since the julian calendar started. Currently 2,000,000 or so.
>> number of days since the beginning of the year is called ordinal date and should be specified with a %o
>> just a thought.
>>
>
> Please read the discussion at
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2013-10/msg00019.html
>
> There are two different definitions for Julian date. POSIX has
> standardized %j to mean the count of days within a Gregorian year, and
> NOT the astronomical Julian date.
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/toc.htm
>
> We are reluctant to burn %o without it being required by POSIX, because
> strftime letters are already sparse; this is particularly true of
> burning a letter to be a synonym to an already standardized letter. The
> proposal in the thread mentioned above would be to add a %J as the
> Astronomical Julian date, if there proves to be enough demand, but so
> far, no one has expressed enough interest to actually write the patch.
>
> Therefore, I'm closing this as not a bug, although you can feel free to
> add further replies to the thread.
>
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]
This bug report was last modified 11 years and 42 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.