Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"

On 4/15/2025 9:10 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:

On 4/14/2025 5:33 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:36:07 -0500, BGB wrote:
>

On 4/14/2025 12:40 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 04:33 this Monday (GMT):
>

I worked out that an integer of a little over 200 bits is sufficient
to represent the age of the known Universe in units of the Planck
interval (5.39e-44 seconds). Therefore, rounding to something more
even, 256 bits should be more than enough to measure any physically
conceivable time down to that resolution.

>
The problem then becomes storing that size.

>
More practical is storing the time in microseconds.

>
Relative to what epoch?
>

>
Probably still Jan 1 1970...

 Technically, it depends on the timezone:
 $ date --date="@0"
Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 PST 1969
 

Well, and however much error there is from decades worth of leap seconds, etc...
But, yeah, better if one had a notion of time that merely measured absolute seconds since the epoch without any particular ties to the Earth's rotation or orbit around the sun. Whether or not its "date" matches exactly with the official Calendar date being secondary.
Like, far more often, we care mostly about the relative time between events for some task, not however it maps to the date and time on the calendar.
...