RE: [boost] Comments on date/time library

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-17 09:31:42

> Default Construction
> --------------------
> It would be useful if default constructors for gregorian::date and
> posix_time::ptime were provided. The default constructors could maybe work
> as follows:
> 
> gregorian::date() ==>   gregorian::date(not_a_date_time)
> posix_time::ptime() ==> posix_time::ptime(gregorian::date(not_a_date_time),
>                                           time_duration(0, 0, 0))

There has been some recent discussion on this very issue, so
here are a couple boost-user archive links:

This one shows you how you can create your own default
constructor:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Boost-Users/message/2701

At least one user wanted this at first, but after using the library
for awhile decided it wasn't really necessary.  See:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Boost-Users/message/2705

I didn't put these in because I never felt comfortable 
about choosing the default values.  
 
> DATE_TIME_INLINE
> ----------------
> It seems wrong that when using the default build of the date/time library, I
> have to #define DATE_TIME_INLINE in all compilation units that use the
> date/time library. Wouldn't it be better to reverse this logic and define
> DATE_TIME_NO_INLINE only when a non-default build is required?
> 
> Also, shouldn't this symbol be called BOOST_DATE_TIME_INLINE (or
> BOOST_DATE_TIME_NO_INLINE :)
>
> Building
> --------
> When building the current CVS state with Borland C++ Builder 5, I am still
> getting all tests and examples built when I only want the library built.

Yes, these issues will be fixed.  Of course with sourceforge down we can't 
really do much of anything :-(  Hopefully it will be back soon...

Jeff