From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f3f07e9e53bcc4f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-24 10:01:44 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.174.75.178!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!b9816.pppool.DE!not-for-mail From: dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: FILETIME <-> Ada.Real_Time.Time conversions Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 18:02:07 GMT Message-ID: <3c276abd.785210@news.cis.dfn.de> References: <3c1f3917.16015859@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3C2057AF.323DFF5C@icn.siemens.de> <3c208dc5.16968437@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3c21f386.108560406@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3c22f845.175317718@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <2hJU7.19199$Ah.629569@rwcrnsc52> NNTP-Posting-Host: b9816.pppool.de (213.7.152.22) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1009216901 20146750 213.7.152.22 (16 [77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18282 Date: 2001-12-24T18:02:07+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:18:06 GMT, "Steve Doiel" wrote: >> >You can determine the Real_Time.Time value for your epoch using >> >Ada.Calendar.Time_Of. I'll call this real_time_epoch. >> >> How do I convert Ada.Calendar.Time to Ada.Real_Time.Time? > >In LRM D.8.18 (Ada.Real_Time) the definition of the type Time refers to 9.6 >(Ada.Calendar). > >I'm not sure whether this means that values of the two Time values >correlate, but the first time I read the clause I thought it did. I know >you cannot directly convert from one to the other, but you may be able to >use Unchecked_Conversion. Wow! It really works at least with GNAT. What a wonderful idea. Many thanks! The last problem is that Ada.Calendar.Time is a political time, so I must somehow get rid of time zone. >Perhaps a language lawyer could provide a better answer here? Actually the issue belongs rather to the Annex E than to D, but I found no word there. Regards, Dmitry Kazakov