From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-03 15:37:46
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]>
> > I'm still wondering why date_time does not support destructive
> > update such as +=. Is there a reason why this is deliberately left out?
> Does lazyness count as deliberate?
Aha! I thought that since it went through a formal review, the
design was deliberate :-).
> > Also, when will duration support D * N, where N is a number?
> > (as printed in the documentation)
> Amazingly it is also in the 'online' documentation ;-) I'll
> try and fix this in the next day or so.
Cool! I'm sure that this will be an easy fix :)
Pardon my pestering and nudging...
PS> Thanks for supporting the default 64 bit computations!
Works well :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk