Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime

comex on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:15:36 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
From: comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:15:11 -0500
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=vPvGRjgWfcUlPr6s6vmu6katycjEeCmQdI2GLRz6OTs=; b=LLy3YVx95CCIQmW/lz4aogfnmH+XMEtX3UZrGWIpwwlYXT0M+fnkyZ4oelsdOnT9gx 1U8uGvdsJfUrNDV5W/d8tFe40KC3UJyWx7iZ/qP1yO6Bp48djBCvK5gQbZ9XsKnjA+02 29tGalI/O5k4BthCWPO3rE0Y1S/mmV1n7judI=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=xx/9TLmRbU4Ive0anLwF6cXE6yNSpgHKCA66oaiG1M3WAuPHeoLOxwzZ6VeOkMlYkf fK0oR9Lw6uKQxIweRUY/YsIrIuILodqt/brWZP1W5EDJ1sSVwryc3pZ4vxVk3UEZ86LC NN6XrFHn7QHw/OlOea5pfNfoRzABfs3PcGUFk=
In-reply-to: <AANLkTi=Fq+iFzyfBMRTgT0kpDz3nqJ64v3hbAtBK7h9h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <AANLkTi=pXagnyQu5QSh0vvVE7Nc-s7KAMtYXj0F9fvLZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <SNT109-W1464A05D16CECE5F444F9F85E20@xxxxxxx> <AANLkTi=Fq+iFzyfBMRTgT0kpDz3nqJ64v3hbAtBK7h9h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:54 AM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Another thing which is important to consider here is that the clock has gone back to being zero based so nday 1 is the second day of the nweek.
>
> No, because the rule is incredibly stupid and says that the clock is
> zero-based but whenever you discuss the nday or nweek you add 1.

I concur with the opinion expressed in this post.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
  - From: Gabriel Vistica

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
  - From: James Baxter
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
  - From: Geoffrey Spear

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread