Boost logo

Boost :

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-07 14:42:54

"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:46:27 -0400, Edward Diener wrote
> > In the Date-Time library documentation for 1.31, the link from Class
> > day_clock takes me to the Construction From Clock section of the
> > class Date. Is that correct ?
> Yes.
> >I was expecting to be taken to
> > documentation for class day_clock's constructors and member
> > functions. Is this a way of saying that day_clock has only a default
> > constructor and the member functions local_day() and universal_day() ?
> Acutally, it has only static functions to return local and UTC day.
> seem worth it's own page in the documentation for 2 functions...

Yes, of course. I should have said "static" and not member functions. I
still think when you take such shortcuts, you need to explain it.

While I have your attention, here is a doc bug in the 1.31 doc for
date/time.If you look at the documentation for ptime, in the section
regarding construction from Clock ( in which I assume that second_clock is
like day_clock with no explicit doc for itself ), the syntax and example for
the second table entry is out of sync as far as the name of the static class
function. It should probably be "universal_time" but the example has
"universal_day" instead.

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