Boost logo

Boost :

From: fred_at_[hidden]
Date: 2003-09-05 11:02:32

> From: Joel de Guzman [mailto:djowel_at_[hidden]]
> > so I like the current
> > interface. I also greatly prefer the syntax of date(1970,1,1) to

> No problem, you can have either or both.

There are a large number of date standards out there. The only
international one that I'm aware of is ISO 8601. (There might be more.
I'm not a date expert.) ISO 8601 has several advantages over most
national "standards".

1) It's difficult to confuse with conventional American and European
date formats.

2) A lexigraphic sort also sorts the dates.

3) It is a standard, so it's slightly easier to justify using than more
culturally-specific formats.

So, my question is, why are things like 1/Feb/1970 allowed? I'd be
happier if either date(19700201) or date(1970,2,1) were permitted.
1970/Feb/1 is marginally better than 1/Feb/1970 since it at least
doesn't look like either the American format or the European format, but
I don't see what's wrong with simply following ISO 8601 just to say that
it's been followed.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at