"Conrad Schneiker/Austin/Contr/IBM" <schneik / us.ibm.com> writes:

> .. To follow up on related notes, it seems like no separate check is made 
> to distinguish when leap seconds are specified in error versus when they 
> are legitimate. OTOH, since AFAIK, no other major relevant language 
> handles better, it's probably not worthwhile (relative to other things 
> that could be done for Ruby) to clean it up this "possible misfeature" (as 
> Matz put it), which might in retrospect be more favorably characterized as 
> a "pragmatic quirk", which seems to violate the principle of least 
> surprise (for most typical non-fully-informed people), but not the 
> principle of least meta-surprise (for people fully-informed about a given 
> issue).

What he said.


Dave