On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 12:17:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
> > "dates who's result" should be "dates whose result."
>
> It's still horrible English :-( A date hasn't got a result, much
> less one that includes a daylight savings time adjustment period.
Good point.
> We should rewrite the entire paragraph. Maybe
>
> Days that contain a daylight savings time adjustment are not 24
> hours, but typically 23 or 25 hours. This change creates a
> conceptual distinction between intervals of "so many days"
> and intervals of "so many hours". Adding '1 day' to a timestamp
> now gives the same local time on the next day even if a daylight
> savings time adjustment occurs between, whereas adding '24 hours'
> will give a different local time when this happens. For example:
Sounds reasonable.
BTW, I don't know what's correct in other countries, but in the US
it's officially "daylight saving time" (singular "saving").
http://tf.nist.gov/general/daylightsavingtime.html
Not that anybody actually says it that way ;-)
--
Michael Fuhr
(Who'd be happy to live on UTC and do away with timezones and DST altogether.)