Re: [boost] Date/Time formal review

From: Ross Smith (r-smith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-18 02:48:19

Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
> 
> Ross Smith wrote:
> >
> > The calendar types would have no arithmetic properties themselves; they
> > exist only to handle the conversion between the opaque time types and
> > calendar-specific representations.
> 
> This I must slightly disagree with. While the "physical" aspects of time
> you defined above are extremely important, many applications cannot avoid
> dealing with the human and political aspects, and certain arithmetic
> operations are needed here too.

Good point. Yes, the calendar types would often contain functions for
domain-specific "arithmetic" operations. I put that in quoytes because
it's not really arithmetic -- if it was, it could be handled by the
underlying scalar time-measurement type's arithmetic operations.
Calendar-specific operations like "add 5 working days" bear a
superficial resemblance to arithmetic but are really something else, and
should be kept separate from true time arithmetic, just as the
civil-calendar and physical-time types they operate on should be
separate.

> > Building Eurocentric assumptions into the language...
> 
> Not sure where you got that idea from? This doesn't look Eurocentric to
> me. Almost all European countries use DST, which isn't well supported by
> the proposed library. :-)

By "Eurocentric" I meant "Western culture centric". Anything that gives
the Gregorian calendar a standard status without giving equal status to
the Muslim, Hindu, etc etc etc calendars should be rejected.

(Yes, I know that's what we have now. That's no excuse to compound the
error.)

-- 
Ross Smith ...................................... Auckland, New Zealand
r-smith_at_[hidden] ....................................................
  "We need a new cosmology. New gods. New sacraments. Another drink."
                                                       -- Patti Smith