RE: [boost] Comments on date/time library

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-18 08:03:20

> Hmmm while I can see your point, I still think a default constructor should
> be provided. And as I, along with all of the users in the messages you cited
> seemed to have expected that default constructed dates would be set to
> 'not_a_date_time', I'd suggest that this would be the most sensible default
> value. I don't see any point in *not* providing a default value.

Keeping the interface to a minimum, preventing accidental/surprising values, 
avoiding the controversy of discussing what an appropriate value for
the default constructor is.  Well, 2 out of 3 anyway :-)

But seriously I'm willing to add it, but I don't think I've heard
a compelling use case yet...

Jeff