Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-04 09:26:28

On May 4, 2013, at 8:46 AM, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Le 04/05/13 14:28, Rob Stewart a écrit :
>> On May 3, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Anurag Kalia <anurag.kalia_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> At which point I wonder, why can't we be symmetrical and allow a function like:
>>> 
>>> make_date(2013, 2, 27);
>> You could have these, instead, for more consistency:
>> 
>> make_date(2013, 45);
>> make_date(2013, w7, fri);
> 
> The later overload is Ok. The following is ambiguous
> 
> make_date(2013, 45);
> 
> and need
> 
> make_date(year(2013), 45);

Right

> BTW, do you prefer w7 or w_7? Or a literal 7_w instead of a constant object?

I'd prefer at least "wk" if not "week" in the name. I don't think an underscore is nice there, and I don't like the literal ordering. Therefore, I'd like to see week7 or wk7.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)