Taylor R Campbell scripsit:
> The proposal claims that `there is about a 1 in 10^-8 probability that
> a computation of elapsed time made by calling this procedure twice
> will be off by 1.' This langauge suggests that there is some random
> chance involved here. But there isn't: leap seconds aren't drawn
> uniformly at random from time. Instead, in a network of POSIX agents
> with reasonably accurate and well-synchronized clocks, every agent
> will observe an erratic clock simultaneously, once every few years.
I have removed this paragraph.
The real point of the 10^-8 is that an interval clock cannot keep the
difference between Posix and UTC time unless it is at least that
accurate, which is very improbable.
This is still a great misunderstanding. Many computers have perfectly good accuracy on that level without any trouble, because they use things like NTP to keep themselves in sync.
Thomas