From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>
Subject: Re: Agenda Bulk Scatter bug
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:51:23 -0400
Message-ID: <8675.1307735483@alphaville.americas.hpqcorp.net>
References: <201106041254.26344.robut@iinet.net.au>
	<2AA642BB-5BB4-40B0-976F-1DC938C064C3@gmail.com>
	<87sjrhmr9f.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37193)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>) id 1QV7jr-0000vk-AQ
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:51:28 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>) id 1QV7jq-0002pa-0H
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:51:27 -0400
Received: from g1t0027.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.34]:26497)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>) id 1QV7jp-0002pV-TF
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:51:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: Message from Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>
	of "Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:16:12 +0200." <87sjrhmr9f.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>
Cc: nicholas.dokos@hp.com, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> wrote:

> (version)
> "GNU Emacs 23.2.1 (i586-suse-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.22.1)
>  of 2011-06-07 on build40"
> 
> (current-time)
> (19954 27377 237772)
> (time-to-days (current-time))
> 734298
> (days-to-time (time-to-days (current-time)))
> (968068 42752)
>  ^^^^^^
> this doesn't fit into a 16bit integer...
> 

That's what I thought at first too, until I read David Edmondson's mail:
He points out that decode-time assumes seconds since the Unix epoch
whereas time-to-days calculates the offset in days since early CE, hence the
calculation is off by 1970 years.

I did a git blame on time-to-days and days-to-time and nothing seems to
have changed recently, so I'd guess Carsten just misremembered.

Nick