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
> 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.
Of course you can do it by changing one line of code:
explicit date(special_values sv):
explicit date(special_values sv = not_a_date_time):
> The other issue is, if there is a plan to add unicode support to the
Can you be a bit more specific about what you want? The streaming code should
already support unicode if the underlying stream supports it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk