Re: [Boost-users] date_time:

From: Piyush Kapadia (piyush.kapadia_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-24 06:08:49

I too tested boost date and found that it is extremely slow and eventually
had to write code that performs much faster.

Speed is one of major strength of C++, we should produce performance details
of each module as well. 

For example boost::variant is 20 times slower than boost::any, which are
similar in functionality, boost::any is very easy to use and is very fast
but does not support serialization.

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of __PPS__
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 2:18 AM
To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
Subject: [Boost-users] date_time:

Are there better conversion functions from ISO date format (calendar, 
ordinal, week dates) in basic and/or extended format?
Should conversion from invalid iso date like "20050231" fail or produce 
same results as date(2005,02,31). (I know that it produces the same 
results, but is it right to convert invalid iso date representation to 
valid date?)

Another thing I noted, some conversion functions accept const 
std::string &, but most of them accept plain std::string, isn't better 
to convert all of them to constant references???

If anybody interested, I wrote such function that accepts iso date 
string in any of the above mentioned 6 combinations and returns date. It 
runs 90-100 times faster than equivalent date_from_iso_string from 
boost. And yes, it does make sure that "20050229" fails

_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users_at_[hidden]
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users