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

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date
From: Anurag Kalia (anurag.kalia_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-04 13:15:17

Howard Hinnant-3 wrote
> On May 4, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Anurag Kalia <

> anurag.kalia@

> > 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@

> > 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.

It makes sense when said like that!

- Anurag.

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/gsoc-2013-draft-proposal-for-chrono-date-tp4646142p4646640.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.