From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-04 07:29:06
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:27:24 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> This is causing an ambiguity:
> using namespace boost::date_time;
Right, you don't need the line above.
> using namespace boost::posix_time;
> time_duration since_1970 = d - 1/Jan/1970;
^^^^^^ joel's extension I presume?
> The error was:
> ... detail omitted...
> Is it really right for us to have two time_durations? I never
> expected this since boost::date_time::time_duration is nowhere
The way to think of namespace date_time is 'detail' for now. I expect to
document it more fully in the future.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk