Boost logo

Boost :

From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-17 05:53:14

FWIW: I prefer date_time too.
WRT the argument that a date is a time; that surely depends on your
If "time" is used as an abbreviation for "time-of-day" then it is clearly
complimentary to "date".
I think this is generally understood as being the use of "time" in
"date-time" - but I could be completely wrong there. In any case I don't
think it it will come to the point where people will see the "date_time"
library and conclude it is not for them because a date is a time :-)
However, it is possible to represent time with no notion of date and
vice-versa, so I definitely prefer "date_time".

Enough rambling...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 11:31 PM
Subject: RE: [boost] Generic Date-Time directory names?

> > If the contents are going in "namespace time" and if boost:: turns into
> > std:: at some point, there will be a conflict with std::time. :-)
> Actually, I am worried about that as well. I personally prefer datetime,
> but several people point out that a 'date' is just a 'time' and hence
> time is the better option.
> Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at