David Suarez de Lis <excalibor / demasiado.com> writes:

> Hi there,
> 
> El Fri, 03 November 2000, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng escribióº
> 
> > On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > 
> > >  Time.local 59, 49, 5, 3, 11, 2000, 5, 308, false, "CST"# => Fri Nov 03 05:49:59 CST 2000
> > >  Time.local 60, 49, 5, 3, 11, 2000, 5, 308, false, "CST"# => Fri Nov 03 05:50:00 CST 2000
> > 
> > Doesn't this paragraph from RFC 1305:
> > suggest that that is worng?  The time yielded should be 03 05:49:60, I
> > think.  I'm no expert on this topic, though.
> 
> I agree with you... Leap seconds are real, like leap years are.. I
> mean, 2000-02-29 really is that, and not 2000-03-01, because this is
> a leap year... the same way, in a 'leap second' year, if they are
> inserted, they do exist as such and not representing the next
> second...

You may be right, but it isn't a Ruby bug...

     dave[rubyweb/raa 8:39:48] date -d "Fri Nov  3 06:20:59 CST 2000"
     Fri Nov  3 06:20:59 CST 2000
     dave[rubyweb/raa 8:39:55] date -d "Fri Nov  3 06:20:60 CST 2000"
     Fri Nov  3 06:21:00 CST 2000



Dave