RE: [boost] Re: [date_time] time_duration

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-03 16:14:20

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of David Abrahams
| Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:08 PM
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: [boost] Re: [date_time] time_duration
|
|>
| > Yikes! They probably all should be plural.  Problem is the abbreviated
| > 'millisecs' doesn't sound right to me, so perhaps that's the reason....
|
| Well, abbrevs just don't sound right.  Bite the bullet and use the
| full names, please!

Yes - millseconds, microsconds, nanoseconds ... please.

And time_point shounds VERY MUCH better to me (than ptime or time).

And I suggest

first_day_of_week_after

first_day_of_week_before

last_day_of_week_in_month

first_day_of_week_in_month

so

first_day_of_week_after my_date(Monday); will now make sense to almost any
reader.

"Boost has always favoured clarity over curtness"

Paul

PS Isn't time from C time in global namespace? Not a macro but still a PITA!

PPS It would be great if Jeff could find the time to produce version 2.  There
is so much that seems right to me.  Forget about MSVC 6 and gcc 2.x and break
out!

Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]   Mobile [phone]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]