--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
date-week-day screws up prior to AD 1 |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 23:45:28 +0000 |
Looking at day of the week, via SRFI-19's date-week-day:
scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-19))
scheme@(guile-user)> (julian-day->date 1721426 0)
$1 = #<date nanosecond: 0 second: 0 minute: 0 hour: 12 day: 1 month: 1 year: 1
zone-offset: 0>
scheme@(guile-user)> (date-week-day (julian-day->date 1721426 0))
$2 = 1
scheme@(guile-user)> (date-week-day (julian-day->date 1721425 0))
$3 = 6
The output for 0001-01-01, Monday, is correct. The preceding day is
actually a Sunday, but Saturday was shown. Looking at the code, this
bug arises for the same reason as the problem with date-year-day raised
in bug#26151. The date-year value, of the weird zero-skipping year
numbering, is passed to an algorithm that obviously expects astronomical
year numbering.
Looking at the code also reveals a second problem: the algorithm is
written to perform divisions with quotient where it obviously needs
modulo. This will manifest in erroneous computations for some earlier
years once the above is fixed.
-zefram
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
Re: bug#26165: date-week-day screws up prior to AD 1 |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Oct 2018 16:41:06 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
Zefram <address@hidden> writes:
> Looking at day of the week, via SRFI-19's date-week-day:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-19))
> scheme@(guile-user)> (julian-day->date 1721426 0)
> $1 = #<date nanosecond: 0 second: 0 minute: 0 hour: 12 day: 1 month: 1 year:
> 1 zone-offset: 0>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (date-week-day (julian-day->date 1721426 0))
> $2 = 1
> scheme@(guile-user)> (date-week-day (julian-day->date 1721425 0))
> $3 = 6
>
> The output for 0001-01-01, Monday, is correct. The preceding day is
> actually a Sunday, but Saturday was shown. Looking at the code, this
> bug arises for the same reason as the problem with date-year-day raised
> in bug#26151.
This is fixed by commit a58c7abd72648f77e4ede5f62a2c4e7969bb7f95 on the
stable-2.2 branch. I'm closing this bug now, but please reopen if
appropriate.
Thanks!
Mark
--- End Message ---