| Gabriel Vistica on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:24:39 -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 |
So when nweek 1000 actually starts, submit a proposal that switches us back to a
1-based nweek. Make sure to add one to the nday so we don't end up going back in
time!
----- Original Message ----
> From: comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 12:15:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI on the nature of ntime
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss