Re: [boost] Comments on date/time library

From: Steven Kirk (steven.kirk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-22 04:57:09

>
> > 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...
>
Well my use-case is that I use a couple of ptimes as members of a class
which keeps track of the earliest and latest readings read in from a remote
device. When I first create this class, no readings have yet been read, so I
construct them with not_a_date_time. I realise a single use-case such as
this probably won't change your mind, but at least I tried ;)