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

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date
From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-04 12:10:12

On May 4, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Anurag Kalia <anurag.kalia_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 
>> I think I see the disconnect.  Simplifying as much as possible (hopefully
>> not too much), you prefer:
>> 
>>   days_date(year::rep, month::rep, day::rep, no_check_t);
>> 
>> whereas I prefer for the same functionality:
>> 
>>   days_date(year, month, day);
>> 
>> or for the sake of removing part of the debate:
>> 
>>   days_date(year, month, day, no_check_t);
>> 
>> Your design doesn't require that year, month and day objects be
>> "validation free", but mine does.
> 
> Howard, I am curious why are we not trying to make the default date type
> beginner-proof? Is it because we already have the "slash" form that
> validates the date?

I think Vicente put it best:

On May 4, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> H.H. approach is a little bit different
> * date constructors build unchecked dates
> * date factories build checked dates

I found this separation of behaviors to be something easily learned, remembered, and does not require the no_check_t syntax.

Howard