Re: [boost] gregorian date - default constructor & more.

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-11 21:01:09

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:22:06 +0100, Pavol Droba wrote
> Hi,
> 
> Is there any reason, why there is no default constructor provided 
> for date classes in the date_time library? 
>
>I seems to me, that it 
> would be quite reasonable to provide it, while intializing the 
> object to not_a_date_time. Current implementatio seems to be 
> unreasonably restrictive.

The reason is because I don't really like default constructors. Perhaps
surprisingly this is only the second time I recall this coming up.  Last time
it seems that I was pretty much convinced, but it never happened.

http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/1508692

Of course you can do it by changing one line of code:

Change boost/date_time/gregorian/greg_date.hpp::68
   explicit date(special_values sv):
to
   explicit date(special_values sv = not_a_date_time):

 
> The other issue is, if there is a plan to add unicode support to the 
> library.

Can you be a bit more specific about what you want?  The streaming code should
already support unicode if the underlying stream supports it.  

Jeff